Deep look into Kentucky stats - courtesy of Open Look Analytics

[Darrell KSR]

UK defensive points per possession allowed when Player "X" is in the game:

Hawkins: 0.84
Humphries: 0.84
Fox: 0.85
Monk: 0.85
Briscoe: 0.85
Willis: 0.85
Gabriel: 0.86
Adebayo: 0.87
Mulder: 0.94
Wynyard: 0.96
Calipari: 1.02
Killeya-Jones: 1.03
David: 1.36
Pulliam: 1.50

[CitizenBBN]

Ooooo, looking forward to all this data. very interesting.

[dan_bgblue]

Thanks a lot Darrell. I am looking forward to the rest of this series of posts

[Darrell KSR]

Net difference in points per possession when Player "X" is on the court (PPP differential):

Mulder +0.47
Humphries +0.42
Gabriel +0.39
Fox +0.38
Monk +0.37
Hawkins +0.37
Adebayo +0.35
Willis +0.34
Briscoe +0.30
Killeya-Jones -0.01
Calipari -0.13
Wynyard -0.15
David -0.84
Pulliam -1.00

[Darrell KSR]

By the way, each component of those PPP is analyzed as well--for example, the turnover percentage when Fox is in the game vs the turnover percentage when he is out of the game; the offensive rebound percentage when Monk is in the game/vs out of the game, FT rate when Player "X" is in the game vs out of the game, etc. If you have something specific in mind, I'll try to look that up. For now, I'm just going to focus on some random items of (hopefully) broad interest to all.

[Darrell KSR]

Let's look at the Fox-Briscoe-Monk combination, then take out Briscoe and replace him with other players. The post after this will do the same by taking out Monk.

UK has had 232 possessions with Fox-Briscoe-Monk on the court, and 405 where that combination has not been present.

FBM combo: net PPP differential + 0.34
non-FMB combo: +0.31

Fox-Monk-Gabriel combo: net PPP diff +0.45
non-FMG combo: +0.26

Fox-Monk-Willis combo: net PPP diff +0.40
non-FMW combo: +0.29

Fox-Monk-Hawkins combo: net PPP +0.48
non-FMH combo: +0.29

Fox-Monk-Mulder combo: net PPP +0.46
non-FMM combo: +0.31

[CitizenBBN]

I'd be curious to know turnover and rebounding numbers if you get around to them.

Very interesting numbers re Mulder debate. Also interesting re Humphries, not sure what to make of his numbers.

[dan_bgblue]

Assists per possession would interest me

[CitizenBBN]

I wonder the extent to which Cal looks at these kinds of metrics. I know we have the numbers, I just wonder how much stock he puts in them.

[dan_bgblue]

Also interesting re Humphries, not sure what to make of his numbers.

[Darrell KSR]

Fox-Monk-Briscoe already posted, so let's look at some Fox-Briscoe-X player combos now. (Note, of course--there are other elements that play into it, and I'm not listing the number of possessions for each combo, but I can provide that upon request).

Fox-Briscoe-Willis PPP +0.39
non-FBW combo: +0.30

Fox-Briscoe-Gabriel PPP +0.36
non-FBG: +0.31

Fox-Briscoe-Hawkins PPP +0.20
non-FBH: +0.33

Fox-Briscoe-Mulder PPP +0.91 (NOTE--there were only 11 possessions all year with this combo)
non-FBM: 0.31

[Darrell KSR]

Now let's remove Fox from the equation.

Monk-Briscoe-Willis: PPP +0.23
non-MBW: +0.35

Monk-Briscoe-Gabriel: PPP +0.38
non-MBG: +0.31

Monk-Briscoe-Hawkins: PPP +0.00
non-MBH: +0.34

I could not find a Monk-Briscoe-Mulder combination. Has that not been tried this year? (I may have overlooked it; I have a PDF of the stats that is non-sortable, although it is searchable to an extent)

[Darrell KSR]

Let's move to the five on the floor--what has Kentucky's most effective lineup been?

First, let's look at the most common lineup--with 93 of the 637 total possessions (believe it or not, that is the most common), we have:

Fox
Willis
Adebayo
Briscoe
Monk

2nd most common subs Gabriel in for Willis (89 possessions).

After that--the 3rd most common is Fox-Hawkins-Adebayo-Monk-Gabriel, but with only 31 possessions together.

All total, Cal has played 83 different combinations of 5-somes on the court together. That's some serious experimentation during the early season, isn't it?

Detail to follow.

[dan_bgblue]

All total, Cal has played 83 different combinations of 5-somes on the court together. That's some serious experimentation during the early season, isn't it?

Even though I have not missed 5 total minutes of all the games played, I would not have even been close if asked to name the most common combination AND the frequency with which they were on the floor together

[Darrell KSR]

There are an even dozen fivesome combinations that have played 10 or more possessions together. I'm going to list all 12 of them from PPP order, most to least:

Fox-Monk-Willis-Gabriel-Adebayo: PPP +1.25, without +0.30 [12 poss]
Fox-Briscoe-Monk-Willis-Humphries: PPP +0.86, without +0.31 [18 poss]
Fox-Hawkins-Monk-Gabriel-Adebayo: PPP +0.82, without +0.30 [31 poss]
Fox-Monk-Mulder-Gabriel-Adebayo: PPP +0.71, without +0.32 [11 poss]
Fox-Hawkins-Monk-Willis-Humphries: PPP +0.67, without +0.31 [15 poss]
Fox-Hawkins-Monk-Willis-Adebayo: PPP +0.46, without +0.32 [19 poss]
Fox-Briscoe-Monk-Gabriel-Adebayo: PPP +0.38, without +0.31 [89 poss]
Hawkins-Calipari-Mulder-Jones-Wynyard: PPP +0.36, without +0.32 [13 poss]
Fox-Briscoe-Monk-Gabriel-Humphries: PPP +0.30, without +0.32 [21 poss]
Fox-Briscoe-Monk-Willis-Adebayo: PPP +0.29, without +0.33 [93 poss]
Fox-Hawkins-Briscoe-Willis-Adebayo: PPP +0.13, without +0.32 [10 poss]
Briscoe-Hawkins-Monk-Willis-Jones: PPP -0.19, without +0.33 [11 poss]

[Darrell KSR]

I'll next do team turnover percentage, with/without Player "X" on the court. I'm going to list them from biggest positive turnover differential (i.e., when Player # 1 is on the court, UK turns it over less than when he is off the court by a higher margin).

Idea here is that the higher the player is on the list, the more UK takes care of the ball when he is on the court compared to when he isn't. (Or maybe they just take a quicker shot which has the same effect. You'll see why I say that in a minute.)

I'm eyeballing it; may have to edit/adjust in a minute.

Player - Turnover with him on court - Turnover without

Mulder: 9.4%, without 15.7%
Fox: 13.1%, without 18.7%
Gabriel 12.2%, without 16.6%
Hawkins: 11.8%, without 16.0%
Monk: 13.7%, without 16.1%

Adebayo: 14.1%, without 14.5%
Humphries: 13.4%, without 14.6%


Killeya-Jones: 16.5%, without, 13.7%
Briscoe: 15.9%, without 12.3%
Willis: 16.4%, without 12.5%

Wynyard: 23.8%, without 13.6%
Calipari: 24.5%, without 13.4%
David: 31.6%, without 13.8%
Pulliam: 41.7%, without 13.8%

[Darrell KSR]

Here are some of the stats I can post later if you are interested in anything in particular:

All with/without them on the court
TO% --either offensive (posted above) or defensive
Offensive rebound %, defensive rebound percentage
Effective FG % (offense or defense)
FT rate (offense or defense, compared to FGA)
Assists per FGM (offense or defense)
3 point FGA as a percentage of total FGs, (offense or defense)
Point per possession (offense or defense)
PPP differential

As mentioned, can do this for any player, with and without that player on the court, but can also do it for any set of players--any twosome, any threesome, any foursome, and any fivesome.

Will let you mull over those stats so far and see if anything is interesting to you. I'll post more later.

Again, thanks to Open Look Analytics for providing the information.

[Philly Cat]

I'm in heaven with this stuff.

First, I love that it challenges my eye-test assumptions about Humphries. I love the kid, but he seems off this year, and a long way from contributing. Obviously, the numbers don't support that assertion.

Second, there is a very small sample-size on the numbers when Briscoe/Mulder have shared the court. With Cal's recent comments, and everyone's desire to see more Mulder, I think it makes sense to pump the brakes on any conclusions about the effectiveness of that lineup combo until we get some more "inputs."

**

Darrell, can you figure out the best defensive 5-man lineup? Maybe it's as simple as subtracting the PPP and "without" figure above, but I think it would be a different set of numbers. Thanks for all of the effort in summarizing the data-- really, this stuff is like Xmas morning for me!

[Edward100]

Great post. Keep R' Commin'

[Darrell KSR]

Will add more to it and will start with team rotation defensive numbers.

Glad to do it. Very enjoyable to me. Some of the numbers surprise me, others support what I've thought.