If you can’t get excited about a brief report from a practice for an exhibition game, then you’re probably not a college basketball fan. (And if you can’t feel a little silly for getting excited about same you’re probably monitoring multiple message boards while reading this.)

From Rodger Bohn at DraftExpress:

“Aldrich was one of the bigger surprises on day one, seemingly converting at least 80% of the shots that he put up from the field. He boasts a soft touch inside, while also knocking down multiple 15-18 foot jump shots on the day. The Minnesota native finished some surprisingly athletic conversions inside, given his immense size. If he is able to continue playing like this, he will certainly be able to help the Jayhawks out next year as a freshman, given the possibility of them losing Julian Wright and/or Darrell Arthur to the NBA.“

I think the final sentence speaks of a remote possibility and it will be hard for Aldrich to earn minutes next year, though it would be lovely if he played well enough to force the issue.

UPDATE: Day Two report from Rodger Bohn:

“Aldrich continued his hot streak from day one, as nearly everything he put up somehow managed to find its way through the net. He hit two three pointers, leaving Kevin Love openly shaking his head in disbelief. The Minnesota prep star ran the floor well and finished well inside, playing with a passion that was non-existent for so many stretches of time on the AAU circuit. It will be interesting to see if Cole is able to keep it up for the remainder of the week and continue to live up to the outstanding potential that he has.”

UCLA made shots. Kansas missed shots.

I haven’t gone back and watched the game again to determine the relative approximate cause (bad Kansas offense vs. good UCLA defense) of the second sentence above. I probably won’t. In a box in a closet in my house there sits an unwatched tape of the 2002 National Semifinal, procured with the intention of charting Maryland’s relative success against Kansas’s man-to-man defense vs. Kansas’s “point zone.”

At least in the first half, Kansas missed shots they did a good job of creating. I believe that the quality and ease of shot that Kansas created declined as the game progressed.

Much of my writing here this season has depended on parsing final box scores in search meaning. I hope I have always remembered that those final numbers derive, in great part, from the effect of individual plays and brief sequences within the games. Because I am a Kansas fan and because Kansas lost, I cannot but wonder how the game would have played out if Kansas had converted some of their early opportunities, allowing them to trade blows with the Bruins for 40 minutes rather than attempting a desperate comeback over the final 13 minutes.

Because I am a Kansas fan and because Kansas lost, I focus not only on Kansas’s improbable misses, but also on UCLA’s improbable makes. This despite full knowledge that the inverse of both those descriptions most likely occurred. (The likelihood of Russell Robinson making both of his three-point attempts is about 11%.)

The inescapable fact of the game, the truth that catches wouldas, couldas, and shouldas in the throat, is this: UCLA won because they made shots that Kansas forced them into taking. Arron Aflalo’s contributions in this regard were most frequent and impressive. Darren Collison’s 23-foot heave over two Jayhawks as the shot clock expired elicited a pained, purely animalistic vocal response from me at the time. In my calmer moments and upon reflection I try to see the almost pure good fortune of the Bruins in that instance as another partial karmic payback for Clint Normore’s less-contested, but similarly deep, desperate, and successful three-point make in Kemper Arena in 1988. Perhaps Collison’s shot will prove to be the one that balances the books as we prepare for the twentieth anniversary of certain charmed events I would very much enjoy seeing replicated.

I had little doubt that UCLA was capable of beating Kansas. I only wish that the Jayhawks had given a better account of themselves with the ball in their hands. As a Kansas fan, though, I’ve experienced far worse ends to a season.

I have been cognizant of the last 24 trips Kansas has made to the NCAA Tournament. 23 of those trips have ended with a loss. 21* or 22** of those losses have been moderately to paralyzingly unpleasant. Even two days later it’s a cold comfort, but I’ve seen worse.

(more…)

We shoot 14/35 on chippies. I guess it has to happen and I give credit to UCLA’s defense, but it is too bad to go down like that.

Cross-posted from HackTheBracket.

This should look a whole lot like the previous round games for these teams. UCLA is playing the best defense in the tourney, and will try to slow down Kansas, just like Southern Illinois did.

The efficiency predictions look quite sensible. UCLA has played slightly better in the three NCAA Tournament games but Kansas was playing slightly better at the end of the regular season/during the conference tournament.

If Kansas can return to their normal levels of turnovers committed and defensive rebounds garnered, they’ll be dangerous for UCLA. Despite an outstanding defensive performance overall from Southern Illinois, Kansas did shoot 60.7 eFG% and that was their worst shooting performance of the tournament so far. UCLA (70.4 DR% on the season) should, however, be able to keep Kansas off the offensive glass when the Jayhawks do miss a shot.

The biggest problem UCLA will pose for Kansas is deciding which of Arron Afflalo or Josh Shipp Brandon Rush will guard down the stretch. Shipp’s numbers are certainly helped by the attention Afflalo draws from opposing defenses, but they aren’t really that different.

If it comes down to free throw shooting, expect both fan bases to be covering their eyes. Kansas and UCLA both shoot 66.3% from the line on the year.

FIRST 3 GAMES ADJ. EFFICIENCY

EFFICIENCY PREDICTIONS

• Full Season Prediction … Kansas 65, UCLA 63
• Last 10 Prediction … Kansas 68, UCLA 63
• Vs. Good Prediction … Kansas 67, UCLA 66
• Trendline Prediction … Kansas 66, UCLA 61
• Tourney So Far Prediction … UCLA 62, Kansas 60

UPDATED GRAPHS

Kansas team capsule
UCLA team capsule

In a game that went largely according to form (not as many possessions as Kansas would want, nor as few as Southern Illinois desired; lots of turnovers; poor Kansas free throw shooting; poor Southern Illinois field goal shooting), one facet of the game stood out: Southern Illinois had 17 offensive rebounds. Kansas had 20 defensive rebounds. That’s 45.9% of possible Kansas defensive rebounds in the Salukis’ hands.

In their previous 23 at-risk games (14 against MVC opponents, the rest against Arkansas, Minnesota, Virginia Tech (twice), Louisiana Tech, Western Kentucky, Indiana, St. Mary’s (CA), and Holy Cross), Southern Illinois, on average, got just 29% of possible offensive rebounds.

That makes it three out of the last four games in which Kansas has failed to grab even 60% of possible offensive rebounds. It wasn’t huge factor in either the Big 12 Championship game against Texas or against Kentucky as Kansas outshot both of those teams while also turning the ball over less often. Against a good defensive team, it almost proved costly.

Holding your opponent to 42.1 eFG% loses a lot of its value when you allow them to attempt 135% as many shots.

UPDATE: Ken Pomeroy’s HD Box Score for KU/SIU

Originally posted on Hack The Bracket, where you can check out previews for the rest of the Sweet 16 games.

Neither of these teams have a real defensive weakness, but there’s one thing they clearly both do least well defensively: they send their opponents on the free throw line fairly often. Their respective free throw rates allowed (opponents’ FTA/opponents FGA) are inflated somewhat due to the number of turnovers they force: Kansas forces turnovers on 24% of opponents’ possessions, Southern Illinois does so on 25% of opponents’ possessions so there’s a practical limit to how many field goal attempts either team allows. Still, Kansas allows their opponents a little more than one free throw attempt for every three field goal attempts while Southern Illinois allows one free throw attempt for every two field goal attempts.

Similarly, neither team’s offense appears likely to take advantage of frequent trips to the free throw line. Kansas shoots 66.6% on free throws, Southern Illinois shoots 69.1%. If Matt Shaw is unable to play, Southern Illinois’s free throw shooting is unlikely to match their season average. Shaw has made 81.7% of his free throws while taking about 15% of Southern Illinois’s free throws on the year.

Even with Shaw, Southern Illinois is far more limited offensively than Kansas. Whereas the Jayhawks feature seven players who score between 19.8 and 30.8 points per 100 possessions, Southern Illinois relies on Jamaal Tatum (30.4 Pts/100), Randal Falker (27.7 Pts/100), Tony Young (23.3 Pts/100), and Shaw (24.6 Pts/100) for almost all their scoring. Bryan Mullins (13.9 Pts/100) is the next most frequent scorer on the team. Tony Boyle provided a significant boost off the bench against Holy Cross (14 points in 21 minutes) but it was massively atypical (Boyle over the rest of the season: 67 points in 375 minutes).

In addition to their greater depth, Kansas does a much better job on the offensive glass (37.9 OR%) than Southern Illinois (31.7 OR%) and in taking care of the ball (19.8 TO% vs. 23% for Southern Illinois). The Jayhawks should put far more pressure on the Salukis’ defense than vice-versa. If Kansas can dictate the pace of play (they’d prefer 8-10 more possessions per game than Southern Illinois typically allows), each of their advantages will be magnified.

FIRST 2 GAMES ADJ. EFFICIENCY

EFFICIENCY PREDICTIONS

• Full Season Prediction … Kansas 64, Southern Illinois 56
• Last 10 Prediction … Kansas 69, Southern Illinois 59
• Vs. Good Prediction … Kansas 65, Southern Illinois 58
• Trendline Prediction … Kansas 68, Southern Illinois 60
• Best 6 Prediction … Kansas 67, Southern Illinois 53

UPDATED GRAPHS

Kansas team capsule

Southern Illinois team capsule