Mark Pope defends Brandon Garrison, but admits there were struggles vs. Michigan State

Brandon Garrison wasn’t the only Wildcat who failed to deliver a productive performance against Michigan State, but his underwhelming showing in Kentucky’s loss to the Spartans stood out above his teammates.

The junior big man posted two points, four rebounds, and two assists without a turnover in 20 minutes played against Tom Izzo’s club. In a vacuum, that isn’t a terrible line, but in a game that Kentucky lost 83-66, head coach Mark Pope needed much more from his starting center. Garrison shot just 1-2 from the field and was the focus of a viral clip that showed him lazily giving up back-to-back offensive rebounds just a few minutes into the game. He finished as a -16 in the box score and was on the bench for the final 6:10 of the second half.

Simply put, that’s not anywhere close to the level of play that Kentucky needs out of Garrison if he’s going to soak up 20 minutes against ranked competition. Pope acknowledged that part during his Thursday press conference, but also made sure to go to bat for the second-year Wildcat.

“BG has made some massive progress from last year,” Pope said when asked why Garrison seems to be struggling through five games this season. “He didn’t have a great energy night against Michigan State, but his conditioning has been great, his intensity on the floor has been great. He’s a 1.5 points per possession plus assists. His offensive numbers, he’s the second-most efficient offensive player on the team.

“So he’s doing a lot of things really well. He had a tough night against Michigan State, like our whole team did. Since we started camp, he’s been our far-and-away assist leader. He brings so much to the table for us.”

On paper, Garrison is Kentucky’s second-most efficient offensive player on the roster so far this season. Per KenPom, his offensive rating of 135.7 ranks behind only Collin Chandler‘s 146.5. On top of that, Garrison’s 76.5 effective field goal percentage is tops on the team, just a touch higher than Chandler’s mark of 75 percent. But those numbers are *slightly* misleading, and I wouldn’t expect Pope to throw his player under the bus to say that. Let’s take a closer look at them.

Against the non-ranked teams, Garrison has looked similar to the player he was last season coming off the bench. He averaged 8.7 points and 4.7 rebounds per outing while shooting 84.6 percent from the field against Nicholls, Valparaiso, and Eastern Illinois. But in the losses to Louisville and Michigan State, those numbers go to 2.5 points and five rebounds on 50 percent shooting. He attempted four total field goals and just two free throws combined against the Cardinals and Spartans.

Yes, the shooting percentages look good — but that’s what happens when 14 of his 17 total shots this season have come inside the paint. 10 of those shots have come right at the rim, a handful of them off lob finishes. In some instances, he’s been in the right position to make a play, and he should be credited for that, but the picture isn’t as pretty once we take a step back and evaluate his play a bit further.

Garrison is struggling to impact offensive rebounding (5.4 offensive rebounding percentage; 5th on the team), hasn’t been making the right reads (21.8 turnover percentage; highest on the team), fails to block many shots (just two all season), and hasn’t been able to get to the free-throw line with any consistency (only six attempts this season). His offensive efficiency numbers look good on paper because they have been inflated, in part, by three bad opponents, a high scoring percentage around the rim, and a lack of overall usage.

What the numbers say isn’t Garrison’s fault, but the numbers aren’t matching what we’re seeing actually happen on the floor with our own eyes. He may end up turning it around, and there is a world where that happens, but until he does, the sample size we have right now is not promising.

Subscribe to the KSR YouTube Channel for press conferences, interviews, original shows, fan features, and exclusive content.