We will look back and see what KU’s roster and team actually did in 2025 compared to projections. Here is the Season Preview.
Dajuan Harris Projections: 75% Mins, -0.20o, +1.18d, +0.98 PPGAB, +1.86 Per100, 2.48 WAR
Dajuan Harris YE Actuals: 77.8% Mins, +0.68o, +1.56d, +2.24 PPGAB, +4.01 Per100, 3.55 WAR
Harris outperformed his projections and graded out as KU’s second-best player across the three major value metrics (though he was very close to the 3rd and 4th best players). A polarizing player throughout his time at Kansas, we take the position that he was seriously undervalued as a senior. His defense and ability to generate offense through his assists (while maintaining low turnover marks) boosted the team’s chances.
Further analysis would suggest that Harris was a role player and that his limitations hurt the team more when he wasn’t playing alongside elite wing scorers (i.e. the last two seasons of his Kansas career). But Juan did improve throughout his time at KU, with the largest jump taking place from his sophomore to junior year. Harris will finish his career with the 30th best WAR and 59th best PAB of all 194 players since 1993, marks that might hold up quite well over the next few years given the lack of continuity in today’s game.
Juan’s clutchness was something that critics could rightly point to as a hole in his game. We analyze that although he played well against the better opponents on the roster (+1.99 POCWAB), he made some bad plays in big moments (-0.31 WPA) including a disastrous turnover late in his final collegiate game. In all, the problems with the 2025 team stemmed beyond Harris, and fans who complained mostly about him ignored the fact he was the best (or second-best) member of the 2025 backcourt and would have played serious minutes even if KU had added an elite lead guard.
Hunter Dickinson Projections: 75% Mins, +3.00o, +1.09d, +4.09 PPGAB, +7.80 Per100, 5.67 WAR
Hunter Dickinson YE Actuals: 74.6% Mins, +2.82o, +1.76d, +4.58 PPGAB, +8.85 Per100, 5.80 WAR
Hunter’s marks landed quite close to his projections, with him overperforming on the defensive side of things. Dickinson was always an underrated defender thanks to his rebounding ability and solid interior defense (more often than not), but when he was bad on this end, he was bad. It seems like he wasn’t utilized well, too often hedging up high and struggling to recover on ball-reversal, yet KU was still the 11th-best defense at the end of the year.
Still, Dickinson was KU’s most productive offensive player and had better-than-team-average efficiency marks despite being used so much. He was likely asked to do too much running the offense, again due to KU’s wings never becoming what they needed to be. Hunter’s clutchness graded out positively, he had a POCWAB of +3.95 and WPA of +0.98, but this ignores he saved his worst game of the year for the NCAA Tournament. His career will be remembered for him not scoring in that second-half, giving up too many easy baskets to the opposing big, and a terrible live-ball turnover that turned cut KU’s lead from 3 points to 1.
In only two seasons, Hunt generated the 22nd-most WAR and 20th-most PAB, placing him among the likes of Scot Pollard, Thomas Robinson, Brandon Rush, and Udoka Azubuike. Dickinson was never good enough to fully rely upon to carry a team, but he was also much better for Kansas than his critics admit. Had he played with a deeper backcourt or alongside KU-level wings while at Kansas, his production would have been in service of more wins instead of disappointing losses.
K.J. Adams Projections: 75% Mins, +0.50o, +2.01d, +2.51 PPGAB, +4.78 Per100, 4.05 WAR
K.J. Adams YE Actuals: 67.7% Mins, -0.11o, +2.28d, +2.16 PPGAB, +4.19 Per100, 3.17 WAR
K.J. was KU’s best players over the last 8 games, averaging a PPGAB of +5.72 while producing 7 positive games. Losing him to injury in the last four minutes of the NCAA Tournament game was also a likely factor in KU’s defeat (and would have devastated the team’s chances at a deep run even if they held on).
It wasn’t always a good season for Adams, as the senior struggled for much of the first few months. His low moment was being benched at home against West Virginia and then returning to the game only to blow a crucial layup attempt inside a minute resulting in a surprising loss. Adams was only a +0.50 player during a 9-game stretch in December and January. He then sat out 3 games due to injury, returning to provide solid defense in a home win against Central Florida and then play up-and-down ball until the final 8 games of the season.
Adams’ best game of the year was against Texas Tech. Around this time he started to pick up his scoring with more efficient shooting, finishing with dunks and mid-range floaters and jumpers. Adams’ defense remained solid throughout the year, though he left value on the table due to low rebounding marks.
The final reaction to K.J. was decidedly mixed, with fans chanting for Flory to replace him during turbulent moments. But by season’s end, the consensus was that KU needed K.J.’s hustle and defense. Adams’ value is another “IQ test” which showed the fans knew much less than Self did when it came to who to play. KU’s defense was better with Adams and eventually K.J. started finishing at the rate he needed to.
The Big 3
Per game, the Harris, Adams, Dickinson trio generated 8.73 points against bubble collectively (and this was despite Harris and Adams missing four combined games due to injury). These three played about half the minutes, so if KU would have gotten that same combined contribution from the rest of the roster, it would have graded out as elite (1-seed territory).
Not only was the fan consensus about the big 3 misguided, it was wrong in the worst way possible. Harris and Adams, despite being role players being stretched beyond their limitations at time, provided very solid value for the Jayhawks as seniors.
Further confirmation of this comes from on/off numbers, which show each member of the big 3 as well above the team average…Harris was +11.1 out of 100 possessions, Adams +9.6, and Dickinson +14.1.
A.J. Storr Projections: 65% Mins, +1.10o, +0.52d, +1.62 PPGAB, +3.57 Per100, 2.94 WAR
A.J. Storr YE Actuals: 38.9% Mins, -0.73o, -0.63d, -1.36 PPGAB, -5.04 Per100, -0.58 WAR
It is shocking to say the least that A.J. Storr had as bad of a season as he did. There were questions coming into the season about his defense and overall “fit” on the roster, but the plain truth is that good players eventually add value regardless of the system they are in. Storr was so far below bubble-level that we cannot attribute it to his teammates not getting him involved or him being poorly utilized by the coaches. The bulk of the problem was Storr himself.
When someone has a bad season his clutchness metrics will also be bad, and Storr’s -1.11 POCWAB and -1.85 WPA directly affected the team’s chances of a better season (and seed). Storr’s worst game was against Houston at home when he was tasked with playing a small-ball four and got schooled by the bigger Houston frontline players. This is yet another area where fan sentiment was completely divorced from reality. KU was always better playing a 2-big lineup and when they tried to “go small” it led to poor results. Additionally, needing to play “modern basketball” by going to a four-out system was strongly rebutted in 2025 as all four number one seeds and Final Four teams played big lineups with Florida, Houston, and Auburn each playing two true bigs (only Duke played a versatile 4-man who could handle the ball and truly generate his own shot from the outside, the unicorn and presumptive number one overall pick in Cooper Flagg). Needless to say, for Storr to be a value-adding player he needed to use his quickness to get around slower players and his size to score over smaller ones. He did neither.
It would be remiss to ignore that Storr did have a great NCAA Tournament game, grading out as KU’s most valuable player and showing the talent KU thought they would get all season. It’s tempting to want him to return to see if he could do that all season, but the wiser decision would be to move on. Storr’s floor was very low, and KU thrives with guys who play hard and add value elsewhere even when their shots aren’t falling.
Zeke Mayo Projections: 65% Mins, +1.30o, +0.43d, +1.73 PPGAB, +3.81 Per100, 3.06 WAR
Zeke Mayo YE Actuals: 78.4% Mins, +1.51o, +0.59d, +2.09 PPGAB, +3.84 Per100, 3.48 WAR
Zeke Mayo’s homecoming worked well for KU. Mayo shot the ball well (42.2% from 3), particularly at home though not on the road (but he did hit shots at neutral sites as well). Zeke outdid our projections for him, showing that unlike others he could play within Self’s system and generate value despite “leveling up” to high-major hoops.
Zeke had five games where he was KU’s best (second-most behind Dickinson) and like K.J. Adams was playing his best ball during the closing stretch (+3.45 PPGAB player over the last 8). But despite showing solid play in POCWAB (+1.98), Zeke’s clutchness was really a problem. He had a -1.89 WPA and numerous poor moments late in games that ended in KU losses. Defensively he rebounded well but would give up too many open 3’s by sagging off shooters.
For the season, Mayo played the most minutes of any KU player and his reliability was something that the team needed. Compared to other one-year players in recent seasons, Mayo’s WAR puts him between Joel Embiid and Gradey Dick. His PAB is sandwiched between Malik Newman and Kelly Oubre. Mayo showed he could play at this level.
Rylan Griffen Projections: 60% Mins, +0.25o, +0.15d, +0.40 PPGAB, +0.95 Per100, 1.59 WAR
Rylan Griffen YE Actuals: 48.5% Mins, -1.01o, +0.24d, -0.77 PPGAB, -2.21 Per100, 0.20 WAR
Griffen’s season was probably the second-most disappointing. It certainly wasn’t as bad as Storr’s, but it was still a letdown. Griffen didn’t make shots like he was supposed to. A 39.2% 3-point shooter the season prior, he was 33.6% while at Kansas and made only 2 of his final 16 threes. He was also limited, with his shot creation not being great and his defense being just okay. Rylan needed to make shots to be effective.
Looking at clutchness metrics, Griffen had a -0.90 POCWAB and -1.53 WPA. His clutchest moments were the big shots he hit against Houston and Duke. But he missed too many shots and wasn’t a great defender.
Shakeel Moore Projections: 30% Mins, -0.25o, +0.21d, -0.04 PPGAB, -0.17 Per100, 0.55 WAR
Shakeel Moore YE Actuals: 20.2% Mins, -0.80o, -0.10d, -0.90 PPGAB, -3.78 Per100, -0.13 WAR
Shak Moore didn’t become a critical part of the rotation until he surprisingly started against UCF in early January. Moore would go on to have a number of solid games while KU was in its best stretch of games, helping KU go 5-1 during that part of the season. In fact, Moore is the only Jayhawk outside of the “big 3” to have positive on/off metrics.
Nevertheless, Moore’s play started to deteriorate and this coincided with his recurring foot injury. Shak never could get fully healthy and was only able to play a few minutes in the NCAA Tournament.
Moore’s numbers aren’t what we projected nor are they what a KU-level guard should be, but we suggest this was due more to injury than poor acclimation to Kansas. Shak showed he could contribute when healthy.
David Coit Projections: 11% Mins, +0.25o, -0.11d, +0.14 PPGAB, +1.76 Per100, 0.36 WAR
David Coit YE Actuals: 38.3% Mins, -0.49o, -0.10d, -0.59 PPGAB, -2.20 Per100, 0.16 WAR
The projections missed regarding Coit’s minutes. We just didn’t see where they would come from, not anticipating the poor play of Storr and Griffen or sustained injury to Moore. Additionally, it looked for a time that Zeke could fill in as a back-up point guard, and that never really panned out. So, there were more minutes for Diggy than first thought.
Coit showed he could knock down shots, but he definitely struggled to score over length or draw fouls and get to the line. Therefore, while his 3-point shooting was a very solid 38.7%, his TS of 53.5% was under what it was in prior seasons. He also struggled to add assist value.
In total, Coit’s effort and competitiveness were a welcome sight. His clutchness scores (-0.73 POCWAB and -0.95 WPA) are in keeping with his below-bubble value. You’d have hoped he could have adjusted better to the higher level of competition, but at the end of the day his play was never going to make or break the season.
Flory Bidunga Projections: 15% Mins, -0.25o, +0.34d, +0.09 PPGAB, +0.87 Per100, 0.39 WAR
Flory Bidunga YE Actuals: 40.3% Mins, +0.34o, +0.54d, +0.88 PPGAB, +3.12 Per100, 1.59 WAR
It was clear immediately that Flory was going to play more than projected as he was clearly a preferable option to Zach Clemence. Additionally, KU attempting to play “small” never truly worked out. KU was also able to play him alongside Hunter Dickinson, something that wasn’t anticipated back in October.
As far as player value is concerned, Flory exceeded all expectations, particularly early on. Through 20 games, Flo was a +3.08 PPGAB player (second on the team) with Per100 value rivaling Hunter Dickinson. For whatever reason, he couldn’t maintain this value and really struggled late (-2.87 PPGAB over the last 8). In this sense he was the inverse-Adams. When K.J. was struggling, Flory was playing well. When Adams started to come around late in the season, it felt like it was at the expense of Flory. Now both did play well together the final 10 minutes in the team’s win against Duke, which was of course without Hunter Dickinson.
This may be the best time to speak of KU’s front-court. We’ve spoke of KU’s “big 3” but what about KU’s 3 bigs? Including Clemence’s limited minutes, KU’s frontcourt produced +7.38 points of value per game (the backcourt was at +0.14 per game). KU had a competitive and valuable front line.
As far as the eye test goes, Bidunga’s elite athleticism and potential is exciting. He showed he could produce highlight dunks, elite defensive plays, and versatility thanks to his ability to run and move laterally. He still needs to develop post moves and some strength to be a truly great Kansas big man. Flory’s clutchness was not too shabby. He had a +0.37 POCWAB due to poor moments late in the year, but his WPA was +1.06 and second overall (behind Adams). When he played in big moments, he didn’t shirk away from them and performed admirably.
Rakease Passmore Projections: 14% Mins, -0.25o, -0.03d, -0.28 PPGAB, -2.87 Per100, -0.01 WAR
Rakease Passmore YE Actuals: 8.4% Mins, -0.93o, -0.40d, -1.33 PPGAB, -15.38 Per100, -0.70 WAR
Passmore never got things going. He played in each of KU’s first 9 games (including against UNC, Michigan State, Duke, Creighton, and Missouri) but by this time it was clear he wasn’t ready. While he had the athleticism, his skill level was severely lacking. Frankly I wonder what the staff saw in him.
His Per100 numbers were the worst of any non-walk-on in quite some time if not ever. While he was never supposed to be an important piece to the roster, he gave the team less than nothing in 2025.
Zach Clemence Projections: 10% Mins, -0.15o, -0.10d, -0.25 PPGAB, -3.64 Per100, -0.06 WAR
Zach Clemence YE Actuals: 3.1% Mins, -0.29o, +0.05d, -0.24 PPGAB, -2.63 Per100, 0.00 WAR
Clemence was lost due to injury, and in the brief moments he played he showed some signs of hustle and athleticism but also really struggled to score. Given KU’s solid frontline, he was never going to be someone who played a lot this past season.
Assuming he leaves KU, Clemence never developed into the type of shooter the staff raved about. He went 10-42 from 3 during his time at Kansas, with one of those being a critical 3 that helped KU avoid a home upset during the 2022 season. He is also famous for a 3 he missed, badly, against Wisconsin in 2023 that resulted in a putback buzzer-beater layup by Bobby Pettiford. Speaking of Pettiford, both he and Clemence came in together in the same recruiting class and it looks like neither will finish up at KU or will have anywhere near the collegiate career they were projected to have.
Final Thoughts
The 2025 season was a major disappointment, even more so than the season prior, as it was widely believed that KU had added the right pieces. The AP voters had them at #1 after all.
While fans will no doubt look back and blame some combination of the big 3, what’s truer is that Self and company did awful in the portal. Zeke provided some value, but aside from that the other four pieces they brought in were all below-bubble level. With Coit + Griffen + Moore + Storr playing 29.2% of the collective minutes, this really hurt. The four value-adding starters and Flory just weren’t good enough to overcome such negative play from their teammates.
Additionally, clutchness played a factor far more in 2025 than it did in prior years. More often than not, Kansas is clutch and wins more close games than they should, but at the very least they win their fair share. In 2025, this was not the case. As a team KU lost 3.58 games more than the computers expected them to, costing them at least two spots on the seed line and an easier First Round (and potential Second Round) opponent. This lack of clutch play was evident in the team’s Round of 64 loss as well.
Charting the Hawks 
One thought on “2025 Season Recap”