For the statistical minded amongst you.....
basketunderreview.com/the-kentucky-trolley-problem/
basketunderreview.com/the-kentucky-trolley-problem/
UK Statistical Analysis
- Thread starter carolinacat
- Start date
Yeah, an extra cup of coffee is required to wade through it. My take is our best offensive team is too small, and benches our better defensive players. Our best defensive lineup doesn't have enough shooters, and doesn't fit Pope's offensive scheme. You could play "bully ball" with that lineup but that requires different sets.
Last year's team was extraordinary in their offensive efficiency (top ten nationally), which enabled us to pull some big upsets. Against Power 5 competition, we averaged 38% 3pt%, 53% 2pt % and 20 FT attempts. We only had 4 games where we averaged less than 1 point per possession. Our offensive efficiency more than balanced out our defensive woes. Not only did we have guys that could shoot a high 3 pt %, but they could do that on a high volume of shots. Contrast that, with a guy like Noah who shoots a high percentage, but doesn't have the athleticism to get a lot of shots against good teams (he's not a threat to take you off the dribble).
Last year our "super shooter" lineup of Brea, Robinson, Almanoor, and Butler were on the floor for 607 possessions. On those possessions, we shot 43% 3pt, and posted an opponent adjusted Points per Possession of 132....which is off the charts good.
If we played defense, at all, in the UL, MSU and Gonzaga games the way we did against UNC, we have a chance at winning any or all of them and we certainly wouldn't have been blown out the way we were. So there's your trolley decision.
We can go back to initiating offense through the 5, like last year, to draw opposing bigs away from the basket and open lanes, but we need to shoot the ball a bit better to fully capitalize on that. BG was serviceable in the role he played last year but A Williams was exceptional at it for a 7 footer. I know BG is this sites whipping boy but he actually played well against Gonzaga while he was in. Frankly, he was the brightest spot on our team in that game. Go back and watch, because I know nobody will believe it.
Haven't seen JQ yet so I don't know if he fits that role or not but I suspect he's best with his back to the rim. I don't see it from MM either, so far.
We can go back to initiating offense through the 5, like last year, to draw opposing bigs away from the basket and open lanes, but we need to shoot the ball a bit better to fully capitalize on that. BG was serviceable in the role he played last year but A Williams was exceptional at it for a 7 footer. I know BG is this sites whipping boy but he actually played well against Gonzaga while he was in. Frankly, he was the brightest spot on our team in that game. Go back and watch, because I know nobody will believe it.
Haven't seen JQ yet so I don't know if he fits that role or not but I suspect he's best with his back to the rim. I don't see it from MM either, so far.
Kentucky’s losses this season show the same pattern every time: poor shooting and no plan to score when shots don’t fall. Here are the data points:
• Gonzaga loss: 26.7% FG, 20.6% from three, 59 points scored. What it should be: at least 42–45% FG and 33–35% from three to keep the offense functional.
• North Carolina loss: only 64 points scored, low 3-point shooting, and got beat on second-chance points. What it should be: 70+ points and at least neutral in rebounding to survive a low-efficiency night.
• Michigan State loss: just 66 points scored with stagnant spacing and low shooting efficiency. What it should be: 70+ points or a reliable way to score inside when shots aren’t falling.
Season shooting numbers show why this keeps happening:
• Team 3-point percentage: about 32% on high volume (around 28 attempts per game). What it should be: at least 35–38% if you are going to rely heavily on spacing and perimeter shooting.
• Bench 3-point shooting: about 30–31%. What it should be: at least 33–35% so the offense doesn’t die when starters sit or go cold.
• Scoring in losses: low 60s. What it should be: 70+, which is the mark of an offense that can survive bad shooting nights.
• Gonzaga loss: 26.7% FG, 20.6% from three, 59 points scored. What it should be: at least 42–45% FG and 33–35% from three to keep the offense functional.
• North Carolina loss: only 64 points scored, low 3-point shooting, and got beat on second-chance points. What it should be: 70+ points and at least neutral in rebounding to survive a low-efficiency night.
• Michigan State loss: just 66 points scored with stagnant spacing and low shooting efficiency. What it should be: 70+ points or a reliable way to score inside when shots aren’t falling.
Season shooting numbers show why this keeps happening:
• Team 3-point percentage: about 32% on high volume (around 28 attempts per game). What it should be: at least 35–38% if you are going to rely heavily on spacing and perimeter shooting.
• Bench 3-point shooting: about 30–31%. What it should be: at least 33–35% so the offense doesn’t die when starters sit or go cold.
• Scoring in losses: low 60s. What it should be: 70+, which is the mark of an offense that can survive bad shooting nights.
The only real metrics that matter are against the top-tier teams.
www.bigbluehistory.com
Statistics for 2025-26
www.bigbluehistory.com
Agreed. In our four losses against NCAA tourney type competition, we're hitting 27-111 3pt% (24%). Overall, we're at 31.9%. We don't have enough quality shooters to space the floor and open up driving lanes. Chandler is really our only consistent 3 point threat. Maybe Jasper (34%) could develop into one, but Pope doesn't seem to want to play him.The only real metrics that matter are against the top-tier teams.
Statistics for 2025-26