SB Nation User Blog: Ken Pomeroy

SAGARIN, POMEROY, and RPI Ratings after 6 Games

Ken Pomeroy — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:54:12 -0000

For those who are interested, Kentucky’s current Sagarin and Pomeroy rankings, even with the losses to VMI and UNC, are higher than they were at any time last year.

Sagarin puts us at 34 in the country; we ended last year at 55 in his rankings.

Pomeroy puts us at 45; we ended last year at 55 in the Pomeroy as well.

The same is not true of the present RPI, where we are presently ranked at 62, having finished last year at 57. This out of kilter RPI ranking is most likely because the year is so fresh and the RPI is so statistically rigid that the numbers just haven’t “gelled” yet. For instance, Evansville is ranked 7th in the country with a record of 2-1, whereas Duke is ranked 16th at 7-0, and Louisville is ranked 129th at 2-0. That will straighten out in a couple more weeks of games (but the RPI remains an inferior analytical and predictive tool).

Our RPI suffers from a Strength of Schedule ranking of 79, which will probably get worse before it gets better. (Of course, starting the season 0-2 didn't help.)

RPI Power Ratings have us at 57.

SURPRISING (?) STATS 5 GAMES INTO SEASON

Ken Pomeroy — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:19:52 -0000

Five games into the season, there are some interesting observations to be made about the UK basketball team.

Despite all of the hand wringing about our supposed lack of flow and efficiency on offense, and the claims that BCG is “just playing Tubby Ball” on offense, the fact is that for the first time in years, we are actually taking and MAKING good shots. It’s actually one of our better team statistics. Completing 52% of our field goals, we are actually among the top teams in the country in this stat, and every member of the regular rotation is shooting better than 40%.

Our free throw per centage is equally solid, at 72.4%, with Porter, Meeks, and Perry hitting at >/= 80%. Less impressive but still solid is our three-point accuracy of 33.3%.

Despite Jodie Meeks’ inconsistency, the team overall is not really “spotty” in this regard; we are consistently outshooting all of our opponents, including the two who beat us. In fact, at no time have we shot below 44.4%, and that low was achieved in an away game against the Number 1 team in the country.

Those who bemoan the lack of offensive rebounds must also consider that when a team hits 70% of its shots (as we nearly did against Kansas State last night), there are simply going to be far fewer opportunities to snag offensive rebounds, which is part of the reason our O.R. stats are low.

The fact is that we are presently experiencing much better offensive effectiveness than any UK team has had in years, with the exception of one little detail: when we are not executing our offense, we are giving the danged ball away. The Turnover situation is beyond ridiculous.

Only two players in the regular rotation have a positive Assist-to-Turnover ratio: our All-American candidate Patrick Patterson, and the much-maligned Michael Porter. That’s it. Everybody except Porter and Patterson gives the ball away more often than he gives it to a teammate to score.

Against Kansas State, starting veterans Perry (5), Ramon (6), and Jodie (9) combined for a mind-boggling 20 of the team’s 31 Turnovers. (That gives Meeks 26 on the year! So much for those who suggested he should play some more of the Point.)

BCG should address the turnover problem post haste, but the interesting fact remains that whatever the guys are doing in executing the BCG offensive scheme, the ball is going in the hoop a significantly higher percentage of the time than it has done in several years.

BRIGHT SPOTS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA GAME (or am I smoking something?)

Ken Pomeroy — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:36:09 -0000

[Editor's note: This has been promoted from the diaries to the front page, and I am sorry I didn't do it sooner. I have just been swamped.]

Unfortunately for me, performance obligations kept me from being able to watch the game last night (some of you may say that’s a blessing), but in trying to reconstruct the game from the tools available via the internet, it seems to me the game reflects several positives. I would appreciate it if those of you who did watch the game could tell me why I should not take heart from the following factors, each of which appears to be an accurate observation of what happened.

1. We out-rebounded the Number 1 team in the country in their home arena.

2. We had 7 different guys block a total of 10 shots on a very tall and athletic No.1 team.

3. We got to the free throw line, and hit shots when we did (almost 80%!).

4. From inside the 3-pt. line we hit 52%, and held them to 38.6%.

And now perhaps the most important overall statistical observation: the game transcript I reviewed showed two distinct games.

GAME 1: This game was played over the first 8:30 minutes of the clock, and North Carolina won this game by a score of 25-6.

GAME 2: This game was played out over the last 31:30 minutes of the clock, and was actually played to a 52-52 tie.

Am I insane to take solace from this observation? That over thirty-one and a half minutes of basketball against the Number 1 team in the country on their home court we played them to a tie? (Technically, we "won" the last 21:40 minutes of the game, but that may be straining at the gnat.)

This is what the game tape suggests – that after coming out shell-shocked and getting pasted over the first 8:26, we made corrections and found answers to match everything they tried. And this is a UNC team favored to win the National Championship, playing them early in the year on their home court. (The numbers make it look as though they didn’t miss Ginyard and Hansbrough at all, by the way.)

Media stories suggest that a blistering halftime lecture by BCG woke the boys up, but actually it looks like it happened with 11:34 left in the first half. What we did over that next 11:34 was outscore them 19-16 on their own court.

If we had made up 15 or 20 points during the garbage minutes of the game to pull the score closer, then I might not see any reason for optimism. But as I noted above, we actually outscored them in the last eleven and a half minutes of the first half, when I know they weren’t trying to relax. Then we played a decent second half (keyed by DeAndre's improved play) and lost that half by only three points. That’s thirty-one and a half minutes of what would appear to have been not-too-bad basketball against a real good team.

It doesn’t look like Roy Williams ever put a true B Team in the game. Every man but one of the nine men who played for UNC played at least 11 minutes (and the other guy played seven minutes), so it looks to me as though we rallied consistently against their A Team for better than three quarters of the game.

Hey, the eight and a half minutes of GAME 1 were horrendous (25-6), but it’s starting to look pretty obvious what we need to work on. We’re giving the ball away (particularly against pressure – 28 turnovers, 53 total in the last two games), and being badly out-played from behind the three-point line (we shoot poorly there, and do not defend the shot well). Jodie (6), Ramon (6), and Darius (5) had 17 of those 28 turnovers, and DeAndre and Michael added 4 apiece.

These are egregious problems, yes, but fix them, and the things we are already doing right will carry us, whether the opponent is VMI or UNC.

Or is there some Peyote in the numbers?

Dick Vitale Column Warns the SEC to Watch Out for Kentucky

Ken Pomeroy — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:47:51 -0000

Here's the link: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/dickvitale/news/story?id=3699324

It's good to hear the SOB finally stop whining about how we cruelly cast Tubby to the curb, and start telling folks that we are going to surprise some people this year.

I will say, having read the article, that it amazes me how guys like Vitale can make millions of dollars writing air-headed columns that don't even say as much about our team as any three random posts from this blog. For example, the article, written by the man who will be paid handsomely to broadcast the UK-UNC game, speaks of how Kevin Gallloway may impact the team, but makes no mention whatsoever of Josh Harrellson. Liggins gets the diaper dandy treatment, while there is a passing mention of the fact that somebody named Jodie Meeks appears to be healthy and ready to contribute.

To me, that suggests that he hasn't even read the box scores on our exhibition games, and he certainly hasn't spoken with anyone knowledgeable about the program. You would think he would be better prepared to comment intelligently on one of the first and certainly one of the most prestigious games he will broadcast this season, between the two winningest programs, one of whom is the first ever unanimous pre-season Number 1.

This makes you understand why guys like Bruce Pearl tell the media how much they marvel at how knowledgeable UK fans are. Anyone who reads this blog even casually is going to be better informed than Dick Vitale.

SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM THE STRANGE OUACHITA GAME

Ken Pomeroy — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 04:41:14 -0000

This game had an odd and not entirely satisfactory feel to it, but there was much to be pleased with.

DEFENSE: Ouachita's 72 points notwithstanding, our defensive effort tonight was actually not bad at all. We held them to 32.9% shooting overall, and had 15 blocks and 7 steals. They had a great shooting team, and the 32.9% figure reflects our blocking 15 of their close-in shots, not them shooting poorly. (I guess taking a shot when Perry Stevenson is within reach of you could be considered shooting poorly, but I assume you get my drift.) Ouachita kept it respectable by taking 28 three's and hitting on 13 of them -- 46.4% accuracy. At one point Ledbetter got hot and hit 4in a row. Absent that tremendous accuracy from beyond the arc, this game would have been much more lopsided.

OFFENSE: Hey, we scored 94 points with Patrick Patterson limited to 14 minutes (foul trouble). That scoring was balanced, with every starter except Ramon Harris scoring in double digits. We were reasonably accurate as a team, hitting 53.4% of our shots, including 6 of 12 from three. Of course we will not be able to sustain that kind of result against SEC level competition (even D-1 OOC), because those would be top of the country numbers if we could.

WITH RESPECT TO 3's: Krebs nailed both of those he took, and DeAndre connected on his only effort from beyond the line. Porter was 1 for 2, Slone 1 for 3, and Meeks was a disappointing 1 for 4. Still, a team effort of 6 for 12 from three is outstanding. It's great to know that we have role players like Krebs and Slone who can be dumped into a game to help out Porter and Meeks whenever we absolutely need a three for a tie or a win. Harrellson can also make that shot dependably (but curiously played only three minutes in this particular game).

JODIE MEEKS: Although there has been much celebration surrounding the scoring of Jodie Meeks, it's worth pointing out that for the most part his field goal production, like that of Ramel Bradley, is based more on quantity than on quality (or volume versus accuracy, if you prefer). Tonight he scored a team-high 23, but hit on only 7 out of 17 shots from the field (barely 41%), which is substantially less accurate than the rest of the team. He also missed ten shots against Missouri-St. Louis, which means he's missed twenty shots over the last two games -- against inferior competition from D-2 schools. That's not a comforting statistic. He's great from the free throw line (8 of 8 last two games), and is certainly one of our better ball handlers (like Porter, he had only one turnover tonight). I desperately want to join in with those who are declaring him to be All-SEC material, but I can't help thinking how scary it can be when a habitual ball hog goes cold. It makes for a long night. I'm not pessimistic, just guarded in my hopes at this point.

MICHAEL PORTER: Despite all of the bemoaning of our situation at the point, Michael Porter scored 10 points despite playing only half the game (21 minutes) on very accurate shooting: 2 for 3 from the field, and 5 of 6 at the line. He also had three rebounds, one assist, and only one turnover (his first and only of the year), meaning that his Assist-to-Turnover ratio over the first three "games" is an extraordinary 9 to 1. That cannot possibly hold up against D-1 competition, but thus far this year Porter's detractors have little fuel for their anti-Porter fire. Others may disagree, but it seemed to me the offense was much smoother with Porter in the game. He still seems a beat slower than ideal on defense.

TURNOVERS: The turnover column was NOT a bright spot tonight for the Wildcats as a team, however, as the team's 20 TO's prevented us from getting the blow-out we yearned for. A.J. Stewart and Jared Carter had three turnovers apiece, and Kevin Galloway and DeAndre Liggins had two apiece in the minutes they spent in the game for Michael Porter at the point. (That's right -- Porter had one, his replacements had four. And Galloway picked up his 2 TO's in a short four minutes!) Others having multiple turnovers include Ramon Harris, Patrick Patterson, and Darius Miller. This MUST improve. Turnovers rob me of my joy when I am watching a game more than anything else. They sicken me more than a missed lay-up. I will note that 16 of the 20 TO's came in the first half, and BCG fixed something during the halftime speechifying. The 4 TO's in the second half is a respectable number, especially this early in the year, with some unusual player combinations on the floor.

PERRY STEVENSON: The unquestioned bright spot of the game was the play of one Perry Stevenson, who had 16 points, 20 rebounds, 7 blocks, 2 assists, one steal, and ZERO turnovers in 35 minutes of play. Outfreakingstanding! I can't recall any Wildcat getting twenty rebounds in a single game since Jared Prickett did it fourteen years ago against Arkansas. (Anybody remember 20 rebounds occurring more recently than that?) Undoubtedly Patterson would have stolen some of that glory if he had had more minutes, but it is outstanding play irrespective.

PARTING SHOT: Do not despair that we did not bury the Fighting Ouachitans (or whatever they're called). This was a good D-2 team with 7 seniors, and the truth is that this game would have been a complete blow-out along the lines of the Missouri game but for two things: (1) our 20 turnovers; and, (2) their freakishly good shooting (13 for 28) from beyond the three-point line. Extrapolate: if we had cut our TO's in half and scored on only half of those 10 saved possessions, we would have reached a score of 105. If they had cooled off a bit from three and hit only ten out of 28 three's, the resulting score would have been 105 to 63 -- and there's your 42 point blow-out. No, it did not happen that way, but there is no shame in a "mere" 20 point victory when you know exactly how manageably close you came to another magnificent exhibition . . . exhibition.

Bring on the Keydets...

PILGRIM, HARRELLSON, MEEKS TOP PERFORMERS IN BLUE/WHITE SCRIMMAGE

Ken Pomeroy — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:42:07 -0000

I found the scrimmage a blast and very interesting for a variety of reasons, but nothing took me by surprise quite as much as Matt Pilgrim's outstanding performance. In only 12 minutes of playing time, Pilgrim scored 13 points and snagged five rebounds without having a single turnover. No other player (not even Jodie) came close to matching that productivity. Those who claimed he is destined for the NBA may prove prescient.

http://www.ukathletics.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2008-2009/b-w1101.html

Matt hit on six of his seven shots, including half of his three-point attempts. The worst that could be said is that he missed three free throws! I'm excited to see whether that level of performance holds up when he becomes eligible. Those are All-American numbers. (If it matters, Matt played on the squad widely perceived to be the "B" team, which means he was playing against our presumed starters, not the walk-ons. To me, that makes his accomplishment all the more impressive.)

I was a little concerned to see that Jodie Meeks, DeAndre Liggins, and Kevin Galloway all had the dreaded turnover disease that killed us so often last year. Only one guard seemed to be trustworthy with the rock -- Michael Porter had only two turnovers in his 38 minutes. Jodie had four, Kevin had five, and Liggins had four in only 21 minutes of play. Unfortunately, you can certainly see Liggins is not yet ready for prime time. (He did score well and have nine assists!)

Michael Porter kept up his dead-eye shooting this year, scoring in double digits and hitting on 40% of his three point attempts (he was second only to Jasper last year in 3-point per centage), which we will need with him in the starting lead guard role. He also had two steals (not a surprise -- remember Michael led the team last year in Steals Per Minute played). Jodie Meeks' play confirmed what we already knew -- that when healthy he is a better scorer than either Ramel or Joe was, so part of that problem is solved. Let's pray Jodie can stay healthy and hold on to the ball.

A bit strange was seeing how vanilla Patrick Patterson's performance was. I'm sure he's still getting the wind back in his sails, but Harrellson, Meeks, and Stevenson all outrebounded him, and in terms of rebounds per minute played, both Matt Pilgrim and (yes) even Jared Carter outrebounded Pat as well (Pat had 6 in 33 min., Jared 6 in 24, Pilgrim 5 in 12). Pat had no blocks and no steals, but did score a healthy 17 points despite Jodie Meeks hogging the ball. (Jodie took 19 shots on the way to a 32-point performance.) Overall, a lackluster performance by Pat, but I am not really that concerned. He'll be back.

The most solid all-around performance was turned in by Josh Harrellson, whose line included 10 rebounds and 16 points on seven of nine shooting (including hitting on the one three-pointer he took), plus two assists, two blocks, and two steals, against only one turnover. It was a very solid performance, and his job on the defensive end was probably a big part of the reason Pat's numbers didn't look any better.

Perry Stevenson had three blocks. Joining Porter on the "Smart D" team, A.J. and Mark Krebs both had three steals. This team will keep a lot of opposing squads scoring in the 50's and 60's.

Hansbrough out indefinitely.

Ken Pomeroy — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:47:14 -0000

Tyler has suffered from shin pain for the past two weeks, and today it was diagnosed as a stress reaction, which is a precursor to a stress fracture. I'm not sure about the medical signs, but it appears that one can identify the site of swelling and bone uptake, and with some degree of confidence predict the location of a potential/future stress fracture. If not identified quickly enough, it will blossom into a stress fracture, and of course that means weeks and weeks of sitting on your can.

The only treatment is rest, and Tyler will be out indefinitely.

I don't want to give false hope, but if I had to visit a terrible injury on some UNC player, I would certainly select the National Player of the Year.

A tough break for Tyler and UNC, but a glimmer of hope for the BBN.

A Message for Mark Story and the Fairweather Fans

Ken Pomeroy — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:30:42 -0000

I shared Coach Brook's consternation with our fairweather fans' traitorous premature exodus during the Arkansas game, and was dumbfounded that any sports writer could pen the words that flowed over Mark Story's name recently -- those words that said it was completely acceptable for half of the stadium to walk out on its team in the third quarter because, after all, our team had been playing poorly and appeared to be likely to lose. Also, it appears these fans thought the bleacher seats were a tad uncomfortable in the cold. What?!!

If you have ever participated in a grueling athletic competition you know that often there comes a time when your physical strength has just been sapped, your legs are cramping, and your body just won't do what you tell it to do, and what it would have done in the first quarter or half or inning or set. Your body has started to dehydrate because to keep you from dying from the heat you've been sweating faster than your gut can absorb the Gatorade you've been sucking down (that's why Dicky Lyons and other get a fluid IV every game). You can't think clearly, because your brain has been fighting for its share of the oxygen with your muscles for hours, and the lactic acid has started building up in each and every muscle. You walk around in a weary fog that you just can't shake.

And that's true whether you're winning or losing.

If you add to that debilitated physical condition the dispiriting effects of being on the losing side of such an effort, I can tell you from personal experience (most of you know what I'm talking about, because you've felt it, too), you WILL reach a point where victory starts to look less inviting than a hot shower and a cold beer and a warm member of the opposite gender (or if you play for Louisville, then whatever gender -- not that there's anything wrong with that). There comes a point where you run the risk of giving up on the inside, and adopting the position that you frankly just don't care anymore.

You hit the wall.

There is no mysticism about this condition. It is well known by players and coaches alike (and distance runners, and mountain climbers, etc.), and coaching staffs spend a lot of time devising strategies to fight the fog and squeeze one more ounce of effort and clarity out of tired minds and weary bodies.

And when that time comes, as it certainly came in the Arkansas game, there is no substitute for the enormous adrenaline boost that comes from hearing 70,000 people scream at the top of their lungs that they love you, that they support you, that they came from far and wide to see you, that they don't give a damn about any post-game traffic jam, that they have frozen their butts off on aluminum bleachers for four hours just for this moment, and that they want you to get your tired ass off that bench and suck in one more great big breath of air, and get out there and win just one more for the Gipper (or Secretariat, or Mr. Keightly, or whomever).

This is no goofy psycho-babble here. Why do you think we even speak of a thing called the home field advantage? Golf aside, it ain't because the home team knows the soft spots in the field, or can handle hard rims, or can take better advantage of a short right field line. Those advantages are negligible in modern stadiums. But one advantage of playing at home is not negligible.

There is both an emotional, psychological boost as well as a legitimate, almost magic physiological reaction that a players gets from the adrenal gland when he knows that he is in HIS house, with HIS family, and that they are counting on him to push those thoughts of beer and broads out of his mind and suck it up for just five more minutes for the glory of everything Blue.

Why do you think the first thing a T-Ball coach teaches his five year-old players is to cheer for every batter? To "shake it off" when they mishandle a hard grounder? Why do people bring friends to court with them for "moral support"? Why do coaches even give halftime pick-me-up speeches? Why do they invite great former players into the locker room to address the team? Why do spirited players walk the sidelines exhorting the crowd to "get up"? Why did the greatest football coach of all time use the story of George Gipp's tragic death to inspire his Irish to beat an undefeated Army squad in 1928?

Who knows whether Gipp ever said those immortal words as he lay dying, but we do know that Knute Rockne told his team that Gipp did.

GIPP: "I've got to go, Rock. It's all right. I'm not afraid. Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper. I don't know where I'll be then, Rock. But I'll know about it, and I'll be happy."

Whew! You see, the fans are every home team's George Gipp. And a true fan doesn't give a rat's ass about beating the crowd out of the parking lot. A true fan doesn't leave because of how hot or cold it is -- it's always worse on the field anyway -- and the fan doesn't have to suffer through the leg cramps. A true fan does NOT let any player look up into the stands to see that half of the "fan" base does not have confidence in its abilities. The fans who left early effectively gave the team the middle finger when the team most needed to hear what every Little League batter hears: "Shake it off, Billy, you can hit this guy."

The fact is that the PLAYERS are not the only PARTICIPANTS in the competition. The fans are part of the game and part of the performance, and if you don't believe me, just reflect on what happened in Atlanta to the basketball 'Cats last year in the SEC tournament (after the storm damaged the large colliseum and we had to play without our fabled fan base). Fans can and in close games DO make a difference, and they therefore have a role to play.

Newsflash for Mr. Story: they cannot play that role if they left for home in the third quarter.

Story needs to learn that leaving before the end of the game says one thing -- and that ain't "win one for the Gipper." To a player on the field who looks up and sees the empty seat, a mass exodus says, "We don't have confidence in you. We quite frankly don't think you have what it takes, and we would rather get on down the road than stay here and watch you lose." It is the functional equivalent of telling a Little League batter, "You can't hit this pitcher. He's too fast for you. Who are you kidding? Why are we even still playing the game?"

And if Story thinks that message has no effect on a frustrated, dehydrated, dispirited, dog-tired teenager, then he knows nothing about organized sport or the human condition.

Tyler Hansbrough vs. Pat Patterson: Whom would you select?

Ken Pomeroy — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:54:54 -0000

Editor's note -- The author here raises a good question, and has defended his position well in this post. Therefore, it gets elevated to the front page. Never let it be said that we shy away from debate here at A Sea of Blue.

Patrick Patterson and Tyler Hansbrough are generally expected to be among the top performing “big men” in this season’s class, and for good reason. I’m interested in hearing folks’ arguments as to which of them is actually the better player. Putting aside your bias in favor of our guy, which would you rather have playing on your college team, and why? Would your answer change if you were picking for your NBA squad?

I am particularly interested in hearing answers from readers of this site, because Hansbrough – the reigning Naismith Award winner as the best player in all of college basketball -- seems to have a number of detractors here, which I do not understand. Is it because Tubby was unable to land him, and we wound up being his second choice? Do we hate him because of what might have been? Or is it because he is 3-0 against us, winning by an average margin of better than 12 points?

If that is the reason, shame on us.

Help me out on this one, because it would appear to me that by the most meaningful, objective criteria, Tyler is at least as solid a basketball player as Patrick, and in terms of his productivity he is a significantly superior basketball player – at least at this point in his college game, and I see no reason to assume that his excellent play will not carry over into a very successful professional career. Apparently the pro scouts agree with me, as Tyler is ranked as the top senior NBA prospect by every mock draft site I have seen (although Pat is given tremendous respect and high placement by them as well). Yet if I believed what I read on this site, I would think Tyler is doomed to a short career as an NBA journeyman twelfth man.

Here’s what I see. Hansbrough is taller, heavier, and stronger, and nearly impossible to bully out of his post defense. With that size comes the fact that he is not quite as quick as Pat, nor do I think he passes quite as well. I would say that the physical comparison is a wash, or at worst a slight edge to Patrick, with a nod toward his superior athleticism.

Usually the man with the higher “game IQ” averages more steals, and the better overall athlete averages more blocks. In our comparison, Hansbrough averages twice as many steals per 40 minutes, whereas Pat averages significantly more blocked shots – in both cases, exactly what one would expect (although, curiously, neither is a naturally gifted shot blocker). Again, it would appear that this is an area that is also a wash.

Both players have a great “motor,” as they say (the will power, discipline, and stamina to stay constantly in motion in game situations, instantly moving on to the next phase), and on that score I would salute both equally.

Pat is slightly more accurate from the field, whereas Hansbrough is slightly more accurate from the free throw line – and much better at getting there. Tyler was actually Number 1 in the country last year at getting to the line, and was Number 5 the year before. This is a skill that does NOT diminish in importance at the next level. Again, this area is at worst a wash with respect to the head to head comparison.

One could continue to banty the clichés back and forth and make all kinds of subjective and unprovable claims (Tyler is “smarter” and a “better leader,” Pat has “better hands,” etc.), but at the end of the day when you put all of that aside and look at their productivity in the good, old fashioned categories of points and rebounds, the empirical evidence would indicate that quite frankly, Pat is not even in the same league as Hansbrough.

The bottom line is that in both “Points Per 40 Minutes” and “Rebounds Per 40 Minutes,” Tyler’s production is almost a full 50% better than Pat’s. As my Butler County grandfather would have said, “he’s half-again as good as the other guy.” Hansbrough’s PP40 is an extraordinary 27.7, whereas Pat’s is 18.4. In fact, Hansbrough’s per game scoring average of 22.8 is not all that far below Pat’s career best 24 (against a thoroughly out-classed Tennessee Tech). It’s the same story with rebounds: Hansbrough’s RP40 is 12.5, whereas Pat’s is 8.6.

Bottom line? Say what you want about their respective abilities, but over the same amount of playing time, Hansbrough will get you 50% more points and 50% more rebounds than Patrick Patterson will. Hmmmmmm.

Could this be attributable to a difference in the quality of the opposition? Well, last year UNC played the 8th toughest schedule in the country, whereas our SOS ranking was 59th. That would not seem to augur in Pat’s favor. Hmmmmmm.

Comparing their respective performances against the same competition also strongly favors Hansbrough. When we played Louisville, Pat had 6 points and 7 rebounds. When Hansbrough played the Cards, he had 28 points and 13 rebounds. Hmmmmm.

I have repeatedly seen on the pages of this blog the assertion that we “have Tyler’s number when he plays us,” and that he never does well against us. To that I would say first that Hansbrough has played us three times and has never lost, so the question of who has whose number would appear to be an open one. I would also point out that while Randolph Morris tended to do a solid job keeping Tyler’s numbers down, last year Hansbrough came in to Rupp Arena against Patrick Patterson’s squad and promptly scored a double-double (Pat did not). Tyler also had three steals and a block; Patrick had zero of either. Hmmmmmm.

I would rather beat the Tarheels than anyone, including Duke, Indiana, Louisville, and Tennessee, but if I am going to think that their national player of the year is over-rated, I will need someone to show me why. Will anyone help me out?

Ken Pomeroy

LEAD GUARD Situation for '08-'09 (w/ Quiz)

Ken Pomeroy — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:41:29 -0000

Most of the people whining about our supposedly woeful situation at lead guard for next year need to pipe down, because all they are doing is proving how uninformed they are about the game of basketball. Take this quick test to see where you stack up:

Which Wildcat was our best DEFENSIVE player last year as measured by Steals Per Minute?

Which Wildcat was our best OFFENSIVE player last year as measured by Free Throw per centage?

Which Wildcat shot better than 40% from behind the three point line last year?

Let me make it easy for you by pointing out that only one Wildcat is the answer to all three questions.

Does that help? Well then, let me give you another hint – it’s not Ramel Bradley, Derrick Jasper, or Jodie Meeks. Does that help?

That’s right, Wildcat fans! The man who holds these three awesome distinctions is the man so many of you are saying is too slow to defend in the SEC, and not a serious offensive threat, even though the statistics prove he is the best pure shooter on the team.

Who is this mystery Wildcat? Why, it’s none other than that slow white boy from California, the much maligned Michael Porter.

Yes, it’s true that Jodie and Ramel were modestly better rebounders (Reb. Per 40 min.: Porter 3.12; Meeks 4.41; Bradley 4.79), and that both had better “Assists to Turnovers” ratios. But if you paid attention to the games you could see that many of the turnovers attributed to Michael were really someone else’s fault -- the result of him following the play called when another team mate did not. Crawford would get late to the spot, Perry would fumble a great pass out of bounds, etc.

Moreover (and this is probably the biggest thing), comparing Michael’s numbers in this regard with those who got to play many more minutes results in an unfair comparison, because those who play longer minutes have time to get into their rhythm, instead of having to come in cold from the bench and spell somebody for two minutes at a time. (Those of you who’ve actually played the game know what I’m talking about.)

It’s also a lot easier for the other players to “read” and anticipate the guards they play more minutes with. By all rights, Bradley SHOULD have had a much better Assist to Turnover ratio; indeed, it would have been very strange if he had not. All of that will right itself when Porter has more minutes with the other starters, and they learn to follow him and the game plan much more closely.

(Incidentally, the Ken Pomeroy numbers show that even with all of this going against him, the team was two points MORE efficient offensively with Michael at the point than with Ramel. How many of you knew that?)

I’m getting very weary of all of this boo-hoo-ing about the point position next year. We’re going to be better with Michael Porter at the helm. The point will have a different personality, but the statistics clearly suggest that the position will be stronger under Porter than it ever was under Bradley.

There is one regard in which I think Ramel had the edge over Michael, and that is that when the game occasionally degenerated into “street ball” (as in the last minute of a game with no timeouts left). In those situations Ramel could revert to playground ball and often make good things happen. I have not seen that from Michael Porter, but frankly I can live without it – Adolph Rupp did.

I confess that although I liked Ramel, I can’t say that he will go down as one of my favorite Wildcats through the years. To be honest, he always seemed to me to be a “not-too-bright Yankee street baller” -- more class clown than class. I cringed every time he made that stupid diamond shape with his hands, and I’ve never thought anything good could come of associating UK with Gangster Rap. Contrast his professional aspiration to become a gangster rap artist with that of, say, Richie Farmer, Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner, and you’ll see where I stand. Good luck, but good riddance.

Go ‘Cats!