Tag: Adams

Wrapping Up the 2024 Season

Note: The value-metrics in this write-up might not match the final published numbers, as the 2024 college basketball season is still being played. But since KU’s season is complete, the only changes to value-metrics will be small and due to what happens with KU’s opponents and how their computer metrics trickle down.

The 2024 team came in with high expectations. Landed the best big-man transfer in the portal. Landed a sought-after portal wing and highly-athletic combo-guard. Returned three starters from team that earned a 1-seed in 2023. A McDonald’s All-American guard leading a decent recruiting class. A healthy coach. Pre-season AP #1. This took a bit of a hit when they lost Arterio Morris to a felony charge. Even still, on paper the team was expected to be good.

For the most part during the non-conference, Kansas lived up to expectations. Sure, its computer metrics took a when it failed to blow out certain teams it should have (Eastern Illinois, UMKC, Missouri). But it got huge wins against the likes of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Connecticut. At 12-1 heading into conference play, the team was trending toward another 1-seed.

The conference schedule was back-loaded in terms of difficulty, so the Jayhawks knew they had to play well in January. Unfortunately, the team lost to UCF and West Virginia on the road (as well as Kansas State in early February). It did have nice home wins—including a 13-point win against Houston in early February—but after McCullar got injured Kansas struggled to find any consistency. Since January 1, KU didn’t win or lose more than 3 games in a row. The team couldn’t find any momentum on the season, although saying the wheels fell off does seem like a stretch.

With that said, the focus on the season recap will be to look at how the roster performed relative to value metrics that help us judge players across seasons. We will also look at how each player did compared to his pre-season expectation, and finally look at the team as a whole. The shooting splits will be listed in the order of FG%/3-pt%/FT%.

Dajuan Harris

Traditional Stat-Line: 8.5 PPG, 6.5 APG, 2.0 RPG, 1.5 SPG, 0.4 BPG on 35.7 MPG, 42.4%/38.4%/80.4%.

Pre-season Value Projection: +2.50 PPGAB, +4.20 Per100AB, +4.24 WAR

Actual Value Score: -0.14 PPGAB, -0.23 Per100AB, +1.57 WAR

Harris was projected to be KU’s second most-valuable player for 2024, as that’s what he was in 2023. But he got off to an awful start to the 2024 season. Aside from a stellar shooting night against Kentucky, he failed to reach double-figures in points until Indiana (11th game of the season). His defensive metrics were poor to begin the year. Through 10 games he was a -1.27 per game defender (in 2023 he was a +2.17 per game defender). This poor play wasn’t reflected much in the team’s overall record, but it did but Juan behind the 8-ball as far as his season-long performance.

By conference season, Harris would begin to play better, improving on the whole until he started playing near the level he had last season. Over his final 15 games, Harris was +2.54 per game, right where he was projected to be on the season. As these games included the stretch run and tournament play, it should be noted that he basically became the player KU was expecting him to be by the time the games really mattered. This makes his season a bit odd. KU played better during the part of the season where its point guard was playing worse. Given how polarizing he is as a player, this makes things even more confusing.

Harris will be back in 2025. There will be plenty of time to look ahead and forecast out his final season in a Kansas uniform. But in looking back at his 2024 campaign, Harris’ Per100 value metrics put him in the 34.5%ile of all Jayhawk rotation players since 1993. You want more from your starter than this. And while he can’t shoulder all of the blame on the team’s poor season, had he been as good as expected from Day 1, the team may have been a bit more competitive.

Elmarko Jackson

Traditional Stat-Line: 4.3 PPG, 1.7 APG, 1.4 RPG, 0.8 SPG, 0.1 BPG on 18.6 MPG, 40.6%/26.7%/76.9%.

Pre-season Value Projection: +0.10 PPGAB, +0.20 Per100AB, +1.44 WAR

Actual Value Score: -2.20 PPGAB, -6.83 Per100AB, -1.26 WAR

Freshmen are basically projected on a curve given their incoming class-ranking, so Jackson was expected to be about bubble-level given how the rating services saw him as a high school senior. Even during the off-season, 2024 NBA mock drafts had him as a possible lottery pick given his intangibles (explosive player, good size as a guard, decent-looking stroke, and so on). Nothing close to this potential developed in 2024. Jackson was given the starting spot in the backcourt to begin the season—in large part due to the poor play of others competing for that role—until he started to slump at the beginning of conference play as was replaced by Johnny Furphy.

Jackson’s season is at the bottom of the list in terms of KU history since 1993. He had the second-worst PPGAB score over the last 3+ decades (Quentin Grimes). His Per100 score was in the 3.85%ile of all rotation players, clearing only a hand-full of role-players and walk-ons who played minutes on past KU teams with depth issues (i.e. Jeff Hawkins and Moulaye Niang in 2003). His WAR, thanks to him playing so many minutes, was the worst in the 1993-2024 span.

It was a disaster of a season for Elmarko. He appeared in all 34 games, but only had an above-bubble impact in 8 of them. (Offensively, he was above-bubble in only 5 of 34). His non-conference play of -0.83 PPGAB looks relatively strong, compared to how he ended the season. Since the beginning of the conference season in early January, Jackson was a -3.05 PPGAB player.

Kevin McCullar

Traditional Stat-Line: 18.3 PPG, 4.1 APG, 6.0 RPG, 1.5 SPG, 0.4 BPG on 34.2 MPG, 45.4%/33.3%/80.5%.

Pre-season Value Projection: +1.71 PPGAB, +3.25 Per100AB, +3.23 WAR

Actual Value Score: +3.97 PPGAB, +6.71 Per100AB, +4.22 WAR

McCullar was a late-returnee for Kansas, coming back after nearly going pro. His return was certainly good news in the summer, but when he came out with an improved shot and stronger offensive game in the non-conference, KU was playing its best ball. Kevin cleared his PPGAB estimate by over 2 points and his Per100AB estimate by over 3 points. And even though he got injured and missed 8 ½ games, his WAR was over a win above expected.

McCullar had the highest PPGAB and Per100AB marks of any Jayhawk this season, and his WAR was third on the team but closely behind two players with 248 and 173 more minutes of game action. McCullar’s injury prevented him from adding to his legacy, as his efficiency waned during the part of the season he was trying to play through the pain.

Overall, Kevin’s jump in performance was a pleasant surprise in a season with few of them, and makes his injury and even more frustrating. When he was out there, he was an 85.1%ile Jayhawk, which is right on par with Ben McLemore’s lone season (2013).

K.J. Adams

Traditional Stat-Line: 12.6 PPG, 3.1 APG, 4.6 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 0.6 BPG on 33.5 MPG, 60.1%/0.0%/60.0%.

Pre-season Value Projection: +0.93 PPGAB, +1.90 Per100AB, +2.33 WAR

Actual Value Score: +2.88 PPGAB, +4.98 Per100AB, +4.42 WAR

Alongside McCullar, K.J. Adams was KU’s most-improved player. He overachieved his PPGAB and Per100AB expected scores by 2 and 3 points respectively, and added 2 WAR above his projection. Adams’s offensive value was right where we thought it would be, it was his defense that made a huge leap. Adams was KU’s best defender, allowing 0.145 points per possession (or 8.7 points per 60 possessions). His strength, quickness, and ability to switch to both guards and posts helped KU put together a mostly acceptable defense for much of the season. Adams was also healthy and consistent, something no other Jayhawk from 2024 can really say. He was the team-MVP in 11 of KU’s 34 games, which led the team this year.

Another polarizing player, we will focus on 2025 and his role at a later date. But KU was barely a tournament team without Adams (even if McCullar/Dickinson were healthy all season). Unfortunately, he had his worst game of the season against Gonzaga, especially on the defensive end. For the season, he had a Per100AB at the 75.2%ile, which is very similar to the per possession value Julian Wright gave as a freshman (2006). And K.J. did this playing far more minutes and less rest. Adams’ value was very under-appreciated.

Hunter Dickinson

Traditional Stat-Line: 17.9 PPG, 2.3 APG, 10.9 RPG, 0.9 SPG, 1.4 BPG on 32.2 MPG, 54.8%/35.4%/62.4%.

Pre-season Value Projection: +5.18 PPGAB, +9.25 Per100AB, +6.88 WAR

Actual Value Score: +3.45 PPGAB, +6.19 Per100AB, +4.77 WAR

Hunter Dickinson had a good season, producing the second-highest PPGAB and Per100AB scores on the team and the highest WAR. Let’s start with that fact, so that the rest of the discussion will be in its proper context. Within this context, Dickinson very-much underachieved his projected totals, and his play worsened as the season progressed (even before his shoulder injury).

Hunt was a +5.40 PPGAB player through the home Houston game, when KU looked like it had turned a corner and was poised to have a strong February run building into March. After that game, beginning with the road K-State contest, Hunt was a -0.45 per game player. This was seen on both ends of the floor, but especially on defense. Over these last 11 games he played (he missed the Cincinnati game in Kansas City), Dickinson was a -2.41 per game defender. His shooting, particularly behind the 3-point and free-throw lines, got worse and hurt his overall offensive game. Even during his slumps, his offense was good enough to be value-adding.

On the season, Dickinson had 9 team-MVP games and had the best performance overall in his dominance of Tennessee’s big men during the third-place game at the Maui Invitational. But that seems like months ago because it was. He saw the likes of Samford take advantage of his propensity to over-hedge ball screens and recover slowly. Teams kept hurt the Jayhawks on this play, to the point that March Madness analyst Brendan Haywood pointed out that KU should think about dropping him into the lane to cover ball-screens this way. We would agree.

Dickinson was in many ways the anti-Harris. He started the season great but limped to the finish, unlike Harris who came around during the late push. But we don’t want to ignore Hunter’s 82.5%ile mark, second on the team and comparable to Nick Collison as a sophomore (2001). From a WAR perspective, Hunt’s season compared to the seasons of other big-men such as Perry Ellis as a junior (2015) or Jeff Withey either his junior or senior seasons (2012 or 2013). These are solid players, and show that Hunt added quite a bit of value.

Nicolas Timberlake

Traditional Stat-Line: 5.2 PPG, 0.6 APG, 1.9 RPG, 0.5 SPG, 0.1 BPG on 15.4 MPG, 38.3%/30.3%/78.6%.

Pre-season Value Projection: +0.32 PPGAB, +0.75 Per100AB, +1.50 WAR

Actual Value Score: -0.93 PPGAB, -3.50 Per100AB, -0.18 WAR

Timberlake had a rough season, producing 4 points worse Per100AB than expected. His poor play, particularly to start the season, also lowered his minutes volume…not something this KU team needed given its depth issues. And by the time Nick started to play better, KU had injuries to key pieces. We really never saw him filling his role when KU was at its best, although there were glimpses such as his senior-night performance vs. K-State.

In the non-conference, Timberlake played at a -1.78 PPGAB. Starting January 1, which was the beginning of conference play on through the NCAA Tournament, his performance was at -0.41 per game. This improvement was more pronounced on the defensive end, where he would grade out as a +0.27 per game player. He was able to move his feet okay, grabbed enough rebounds, and otherwise was a healthy and energetic player.

But his offense, unfortunately, never really clicked. He was officially credited with 22 assists on the season, which, as a 2-guard, is really terrible. We had him with 17 value-assists, which even if you doubled his minutes, would come to about 1 per game on 30 minutes. His shot didn’t consistently fall, which really hurt the value he provided to the team.

Timberlake was at the 14.0%ile of all Jayhawk rotation players since 1993. A close comp here would be 2010 Brady Morningstar or 2023 Joseph Yesufu. Given that Timberlake was meant to be a step-up from Yesufu, this was a major disappointment.

Positive moments Nick will be remembered for are his athletic dunks as well as drawing a late foul against Samford and knocking down 2 FT’s to put KU up 3 in the final seconds.

Johnny Furphy

Traditional Stat-Line: 9.0 PPG, 1.0 APG, 4.9 RPG, 0.9 SPG, 0.8 BPG on 24.1 MPG, 46.6%/35.2%/76.5%.

Pre-season Value Projection: -0.84 PPGAB, -6.30 Per100AB, -0.49 WAR

Actual Value Score: -0.23 PPGAB, -0.54 Per100AB, +0.90 WAR

Furphy was KU’s latest roster move, he joined the team so late he didn’t even play in Puerto Rico in August, and he wound up being the only newcomer to meet expectations. His were low, given limited information about him from recruiting services and the unknown about foreign players. Compared to Svi Mykhailiuk, Furphy had a much stronger season as a frosh than Svi did. After cementing his role as KU’s fifth starter (when the team was fully healthy), Furphy worked his way into an above-bubble player for the Jayhawks during the middle of conference play. He had some rough moments down the stretch of the season to finish below-bubble, but he was comfortably above D-1 average and therefore produced nearly 1 full win above replacement.

Furphy was at the 32.1%ile of Jayhawk players who crack the rotation, which was very close to Wayne Selden’s freshman season (2014). A career trajectory like Selden’s would be excellent news for Kansas. We shall see what happens with Johnny, a skilled scorer with clear pro potential.

Johnny’s offense ended up worse than his defense, which seems strange. Furphy’s defense wasn’t great, but he did add value by rebounding and just competing. His inability to break down defenses or generate points for others (only 28 value-assists on the season) took away from his solid shooting numbers.

Parker Braun

Traditional Stat-Line: 2.2 PPG, 0.3 APG, 1.6 RPG, 0.2 SPG, 0.6 BPG on 7.5 MPG, 66.7%/36.4%/66.7%.

Pre-season Value Projection: -0.39 PPGAB, -2.75 Per100AB, 0.00 WAR

Actual Value Score: -0.70 PPGAB, -5.44 Per100AB, -0.33 WAR

Parker was projected to be a replacement player, or average D1 guy coming in as a backup to Hunter Dickinson. The fact he didn’t get there is important, although he was never the guy who was going to make or break the season for Kansas. Parker knew his role, but his defense was never where it needed to be. He did shoot a high percentage, mostly on lob-dunks and layup attempts, but his lack of production hurt the team whenever he played.

Braun’s play registered at the 6.9%ile of all Kansas Jayhawk rotation players since ’93. He was about as good, per possession, as sophomore Mitch Lightfoot (2018), who played a similar role for a Final Four team when he backed up Doke. Braun played 18.6% of available minutes, close to the 20.1% that was projected for him.

Jamari McDowell

Traditional Stat-Line: 1.8 PPG, 0.5 APG, 1.2 RPG, 0.2 SPG, 0.1 BPG on 7.2 MPG, 30.8%/28.1%/84.2%.

Pre-season Value Projection: -0.72 PPGAB, -6.02 Per100AB, -0.40 WAR

Actual Value Score: -0.75 PPGAB, -6.01 Per100AB, -0.35 WAR

Jamari’s projection was the most accurate. We even nailed his minutes (he played 16.4%; projection was 17.1%). As a true freshman toward the lower-end of the Top 100, Jamari was never expected to be a huge contributor. With only 9 scholarship players, he filled a role as a back-up wing who was there to play defense first. McDowell’s play was at the 5.5%ile of all rotation players in KU history since ’93. He was about the same as Tristan Enaruna as a freshman (2020). Given how much better Enaruna has gotten (albeit at a low-major), there’s no reason to think McDowell can’t become a KU-level player as an upper-classman.

TEAM

We projected KU to be a +8.51 team, meaning they would beat their opponents by 8.51 more points per game than a bubble-team would be expected to. This projection, independently arrived at, was quite close to how KenPom and Bart Torvik saw them. This number ended up being +3.62 by season’s end. This ended up being the worst team in the Self-era as well as the worst team since 1993 (1989 was likely the last Kansas team to be this bad from a computer-rankings/efficiency perspective).

In October we looked at different scenarios as to how the season could play out. A median case, worst case, and best case scenario. Look at what we wrote about what could happen if KU had a worst case type of season.

In this scenario, one of its key players struggles with an injury and this weakens an already depleted roster. KU’s offense could also struggle as teams force McCullar and Adams to make jump-shots while forcing the ball out of Dickinson’s hands. On defense, while it’s difficult to see KU being bad on this end, teams could put Dickinson in high-ball pick-n-rolls and take advantage of Self’s propensity to switch screens.

If KU were to struggle enough, it could lose games it was projected to win preseason and find itself slipping down into the 5-6 seed range. In this range, a First Round upset loss is more likely and a second-weekend in the NCAA’s less likely. For KU’s worst case scenario to be a comfortable NCAA Tournament team is something most teams can’t say a few weeks before the season starts.

This is basically what happened. McCullar’s injury proved to be too much. Jump-shots stopped falling, and Hunter had more difficulty avoiding double-teams. KU’s defense faltered when Hunt was put in high-ball pick-n-rolls. Kansas did get a 4-seed, making it slightly better than it could have been, but didn’t make the second-weekend. However, its tough to see the season playing out worse under any reasonable situation. KU’s floor is so high, that it makes rebuilding easier. We won’t look ahead until later posts, but there isn’t any reason to panic about the state of the program right now.

That about puts a bow on the 2024 season. Thank you and Rock Chalk.

K.J. Adams’ Defense

After Jalen Wilson departed for the NBA and KU picked up 7’1 center Hunter Dickinson in the portal, K.J. Adams shifted his position from the 5-spot to the 4-spot in KU’s starting line-up. This shift has been seen on both ends of the floor. Offensively, he’s posting up less and making more plays on the perimeter as a creator (where he’s third on the team in assists). And while he doesn’t have what one would call “range,” he’s been making some mid-range jumpers and push-shots with Hunter underneath to rebound, which is what a traditional 4-man does when he is playing with a true 5-man.

But it is K.J. Adams’ defense which has been the most-valuable part of his game with his switch to the 4-spot. Last season, as someone primarily guarding the opposing 5-man at a height and length disadvantage, Adams was basically a neutral-value defender, finishing with a Per100 points-against bubble of -0.22. He gave up 12.7 points per 60 possessions (worst among the starters) as he had to battle inside. (Adams was able to benefit by having a slower player on him on the offensive end, so he did finish as a positive-value player overall (+0.49 per game)). In 2024, Adams is KU’s strongest defender, with a +5.01 Per100 value. And while his rebounding hasn’t really improved, he is giving up only 7.7 points per 60 possessions now that he’s guarding mostly wings and forwards. This defensive stinginess not only leads the team, but is close to the range of what KU’s best defenders have allowed over the past decades.

Since 2018, we have tracked defensive value at detailed-enough level to estimate which players were the best at not allowing points to be scored. This is seven seasons of data, including 2024. In this time, only three times has a player been a stingier defender than K.J. Adams this season. Marcus Garrett (2020 and 2021) accounts for two of these seasons. The other, which you wouldn’t probably guess correctly if you had 20 chances, was Isaiah Moss. While Moss didn’t rebound or force turnovers, he stayed close to his man and didn’t overhelp. Overhelping, particularly off wing shooters, is where many teams lose defensive value. Completely leaving one’s man should only be done to prevent an uncontested layup or wide-open 3 by a good shooter. Moss wasn’t overly athletic, but he had a high BBIQ as a veteran defender.

But back to K.J. K.J.’s value on the defensive end is estimated to be +5.01 points above that of a bubble-level player Per100 possessions. If we look at this from a per game ratio, then Adams is producing an estimated +2.91 points of defensive value above a KU-caliber replacement. According to current information, this would put him as having the 7th-best defensive season in the last 32 seasons (there have been 453 player-seasons in that time. K.J.’s 7th of 453).

That’s rather incredible. Whenever K.J.’s defense is talked about by fans, it’s often derided due to him not getting enough rebounds or having “short arms.” It’s true he doesn’t add value through rebounds or forcing turnovers. But he does an excellent job of not giving up easy scoring opportunities. He uses his strength to guard bigger players and his quickness to stay in front of guards. This versatility means he can easily switch positions 1-4 (and as we saw last season, can also play some against 5’s without being dominated). In turn, this forces teams to over-pass or take a less-than-ideal shot on certain possessions. All of this shows up in the numbers when we chart each defensive possession.

Note that these value estimates aren’t an exact science. Other sources don’t see him as having this much defensive value. Hoop-explorer doesn’t see much difference (although it relies on On/Off data which is very noisy and probably not wholly accurate). Evan Miya, which uses On/Off data and attempts to normalize the relative strengths of the other 9 players on the floor, has him as KU’s fourth-best defender. Without being overly critical, this seems to discount the on/off method for assessing player value. It isn’t K.J.’s fault if another teammate blows a defensive assignment when he’s in the game. While, with enough of a sample size, this “noise” would eventually even itself out (theoretically leaving you with just the player’s impact), it doesn’t seem to be the case unless there is a much larger sampling of minutes played. While K.J. has played 840 minutes so far, this only leaves 165 which he is on the bench. On/Off here isn’t really helping.

In 25 games this season, K.J. has posted positive defensive-scores in 21 of them. Teams aren’t attacking him much (like they would last season if they had a capable big). This means he’s doing his part. KU’s had defensive lapses, particularly among ball-screen coverage, but this is mostly due to Hunter being out of position (KU would do better to drop him rather than have him hard-hedge) or a separate wing/guard not being good at rotating over. K.J.’s fewest minutes in a game came against Chaminade, after he arrived following the death of his mom and didn’t start. He wasn’t expected to play, but did get on the court for 26 minutes and produced a small positive amount of defensive value. Self clearly wanted him on the court despite the opponent being a Division II team. This is further evidence that his defense warrants playing time, and is thus valuable.

Wrapping Up the Non-Con

KU's McCullar earns Big 12 award after second triple-double | KSNT 27 News

The 2023 portion of the 2024 regular season is wrapped up. KU went 12-1 during this non-conference stretch, a good result given the quality of opponents it faced. Using the NCAA’s Net Rankings, KU went 3-1 in Quad 1 games and 1-0 in Quad 2 games. Extrapolate that type of performance out over the rest of the season, and the Jayhawks will cruise into March as a 1-seed. But, this may not be that likely given a few concerning trends.

Best Game, Worse Game

Using a very similar concept to how Ken Pomeroy rates his teams, Charting the Hawks using a point margin difference to rate individual players or games. For CtH, a comparison level of a bubble-team is used to judge how well a player or the Kansas team itself is performing. This is in point differential (or margin) in comparison to a bubble-level mark. For instance, if we’d expect a bubble-level team to beat KU’s current opponent by 10 points (after accounting for location), and KU wins by 18, we’d say that KU had a “game score” of +8.00. This +8.00 score would also equal the net of all Kansas players’ individual game scores, as the system is breaking down each player’s value as a portion of the total team score.

This system is not perfect, but it does have the benefit of being easy(ish) to calculate and understand. In the non-conference, KU’s best game (relative to opponent) was its first one against North Carolina Central. KU’s game score was +24.04, meaning it won by 24 more points than a bubble-team would have expected to. On the flip side, KU’s 8-point win against Eastern Illinois garnished a game score of -15.43, indicating that the actual single-digit margin Kansas won by was about 15 points worse than what a bubble-team would have expected to achieve.

Looking at individuals, KU’s best performance in a game was Hunter Dickinson’s +17.63 margin against Tennessee. Dickinson scored 17 points in that game, but defended great (only allowing 3 points) and rebounded at an elite level, coming down with 20 official rebounds. The interior was owned by Kansas, forcing Tennessee to jack up 33 3-point shots, only to make 9. KU scored 20 more points than the Vols inside the arc that game.

Hunter also has KU’s worst individual performance. It occurred the night before the Tennessee game, against Marquette. Hunt’s score was -10.16 points, indicating a bubble-level player (think average player on a bubble-team) would be expected to play this many more points better against that opponent. In Dickinson’s case, it was the play of Oso Ighodaro which contributed to such a poor game score. Hunter had his worst defensive performance as Ighodaro scored 21 points that night, much of it against HD. In total, Dickinson would give up 26 points to Marquette while grabbing a season-low 8 rebounds.

While this was Dickinson’s worst game, on the season Hunter has been tremendous. Through 13 games, he is adding an estimated 5.35 points per game above bubble, second only to Kevin McCullar at +5.89. The team, as a whole, is averaging only +5.30 points per game above bubble. While the Hawks are 12-1, their point margins haven’t been as good as we’d expect.

Grading Projections

Before the season, KU was projected to have an average game score of +8.51 (vs. +5.30 in reality). This 3.21 point per game difference could be the difference of a win and loss in multiple conference games. In fact, KenPom’s predicted scores for KU’s conference games show 14 games out of 18 to finish within single-digits. KU having underachieving its desired margins so far is a sign of concern, as point margin has predicative implications. This doesn’t mean Kansas can’t improve. To see how, let’s break down KU’s performance to the player level.

This table shows each player’s 2024 projection and actual play through 13 games in points per game.

PlayerPre-Season ProjCurrent Actual
Dajuan Harris+2.50-2.79
Elmarko Jackson+0.10-0.89
Kevin McCullar+1.71+5.89
K.J. Adams+0.93+2.33
Hunter Dickinson+5.18+5.35
Nicolas Timberlake+0.32-1.82
Johnny Furphy-0.84-0.12
Parker Braun-0.39-0.37
Jamari McDowell-0.72-1.07
TEAM+5.30+8.51
In PPG, individual scores won’t add up to TEAM due to walk-on scores missing

While there is still a lot of season left, there have been quite a few players with far different scores than their preseason predictions. Dajuan Harris has been the worst, performing over 5 points worse per game than his projection. Nicolas Timberlake and Elmarko Jackson have also been worse than expected, although Jackson has performed to his preseason expectation over his last 8 games (thanks to his defense). But KU’s guards are what’s holding the team back.

On the flip side, Kevin McCullar has overshot his preseason forecast by more than 4 points a game. McCullar is the Jayhawks’ leading scorer, having hit double-figures in every game this year. His low output was 12 against Kentucky, but this came in his first triple-double performance of the season (he’d add another against Chaminade). Fellow returnee K.J. Adams is defending at a conference first-team level after making the switch back to the defensive perimeter this season. His value score has easily exceeded his value score last year, as he’s also finding new ways to score. Newcomer Hunter Dickinson has hit his lofty preseason expectation of over 5 points of value per game. His backup, Parker Braun, is right at his incoming projection. The other wings, Johnny Furphy and Jamari McDowell, are within range of their projections, but Furphy has certainly played the better of the two.

If we look at where KU can get more value, it’s clear that the wings and interior players are tapped out. Not much more can be expected from Hunter or Kevin. KU needs its guards to start playing better on a consistent basis. This starts with Dajuan Harris. After reaching a season low -3.64 points per game against bubble mark after the Mizzou game, an unprecedented mark for a starter, Harris has responded with 2 positive games over his last 3. Against Wichita State, Harris had his best performance mostly due to a solid defensive game. It’s on this end where Harris has been especially disappointing. Dajuan was the conference defensive player of the year last season; in the 2024 season he’s worse than 1.08 points per game compared to a bubble-level defender. Had he been generating a bunch of offense to compensate, this would be more understandable. But his offense has been the worst it’s ever been, due to limited scoring and poor shooting rates on his floaters and runners.

With KU performing around 3.21 points worse per game than expected, and some of that due to the play of the walk-ons, we can essentially single out one single culprit as to why KU’s margins aren’t as strong as they were expected to be. This culprit is Dajuan Harris. While Timberlake and Jackson have been less valuable than expected, their poor play has been covered by the strong play of McCullar and Adams. Had Harris only played at a bubble-player level, or around 0.00, KU would be hitting its preseason expectations and be about fifth on KenPom (instead of 13th). Furthermore, Harris is KU’s point guard. He is the only one with the pace and ball-handling to run the team effectively at this point. KU can mix and match on the wings, using Furphy and McDowell when Jackson or Timberlake struggle. It doesn’t really have a Dajuan replacement and thus needs him to perform.

New Projections

The new projections use the actual play over the first 13 games along with the preseason projections in a weighted fashion. We should expect a player to trend back toward his preseason projection. These numbers are just a math equation; there’s been no new analysis involved at deriving them.

PlayerPre-season ProjCurrent Projection
Dajuan Harris+2.50-0.63
Elmarko Jackson+0.10-0.49
Kevin McCullar+1.71+4.18
K.J. Adams+0.93+1.76
Hunter Dickinson+5.18+5.28
Nicolas Timberlake+0.32-0.95
Johnny Furphy-0.84-0.36
Parker Braun-0.39-0.38
Jamari McDowell-0.72-0.88
TEAM+8.51+6.61
In PPG, individual scores won’t add up to TEAM due to walk-on scores missing

Worst Case, Median Case, Best Case Scenario

These scenarios are updated from the preseason ones. Also included after each scenario is a look at what that team’s Final 4 chances would be, using historic F4 percentages by seed-line.

The new team scenarios are as follows. The actual worst case is of course an injury to Kevin or Hunter, but barring that improbability, a worst-case scenario that sees KU maintaining its full roster would be that KU’s guards never develop and teams continue to double on Hunter to make the others beat them. In this scenario, teams also focus their defensive energies on denying the ball to McCullar. While I can’t see KU failing to win all but a few of its home games, it could hit a tough spell during conference play on the road and rack up multiple losses in a row. For seeding purposes, KU could fall to a 5 or 6-seed if it can’t get necessary plays from its back-court. F4 chances: ~5%.

The most-likely scenario, or median case, would be that Jackson and Harris pick things up, building off of recent good performances, and start to produce for the Jayhawks during conference play. Harris doesn’t seem far off, and Jackson has been a legitimately solid defender whose offensive game has started to come around (had a career high 12 points vs. Wichita State). In this scenario, KU continues to win close games, loses a few close games, but also gets a bit better on the margin front which helps it out. KU earns a 2 or 3-seed and has a good chance to make the second weekend given its experience and talent. F4 chances: ~15% (Bart Torvik puts KU’s F4 chances at 10.4% as of 1/2/2024)

The best-case scenario is that KU gets the Dajuan Harris of last season to go along with the excellent play of its wings and front-court. Jackson fills his role nicely as a solid transition player and defender, Furphy and Timberlake come off the bench to knock in 3’s, and Braun and McDowell continue providing solid energy so the team can play 9 and stay fresh. In this scenario, KU establishes its dominance during conference play and fends off the new teams with strong efficiency marks in non-conference play. KU then goes on to earn a 1-seed in the NCAA’s and puts itself in a good position to make a Final Four run. F4 chances: ~35%

Three’s Company

Eleven games into the 2024 season, KU’s been carried by its “Big 3” of Hunter Dickinson, Kevin McCullar, and K.J. Adams. The trio has combined for 64.7% of KU’s points scored this season while playing 48.4% of available minutes. This production works out to points per game averages of 19.2, 19.2 and 13.0. No one else on the team averages even 7.0.

Additionally, these three have been the best defenders on the team according to the charting. Per total per game value; Dickinson (+6.64), McCullar (+5.14), and Adams (+2.31) are playing well beyond that of a bubble-player, while all 6 of the other scholarship guys are below 0.00. KU is heavily reliant on this trio to win games.

For a Kansas team to be so reliant on just a few players seemed odd, so I explored a way to quantify this and compare it to other KU seasons. The best way was to use WAR, which is additive, and sort each season by that year’s team’s most valuable player to its worst.

Here are the numerous ways the 2024 team stands out:

  • Of the 2024 team’s total WAR, each of KU’s Big 3 has collected at least 25% of the team’s total WAR (note that a player can be negative if he has negative WAR). Since 1994 (31 seasons), only once has this happened over the course of an entire year (2017 with Frank Mason, Josh Jackson, Devonte’ Graham).
  • Through 11 games, the trio of HD/KM/KJA has produced 5.94 WAR, which if multiplied out to a 36-game season, would be 19.43. This would be the best out of any KU team’s best three players, with the 2012 team earning 19.07 during a 38-game schedule. (If we compared apples to apples, this year’s Big 3 is on pace to earn 20.51 WAR over 38 games).
  • It’s not only that this year’s top trio is playing well; it’s also that no one else is doing much. Of the team’s total WAR, the HD/KM/KJA three have earned 124% of the WAR, indicating that the sum of everyone else is below replacement-level. At no point since 1994 have players 4 on down collectively generated negative Wins Above Replacement score for the Kansas Jayhawks. The closest was in 2005, when all players save Wayne Simien, Keith Langford, and Aaron Miles produced a meager 0.53 WAR. The current 2024 non-Big 3 is at -1.15 WAR through 11 games.

Note how the orange dot (Top 3 combined WAR) is always contained within the blue bar (Total Team WAR) except for the 2024 season. For the 2024 team, KU’s needed everything it has gotten from its Big 3 due to the rest of the roster struggling to play at a high level. Projecting forward, one assumes that Dajuan Harris will pick things up. There might also be some reversion down, particularly with Kevin McCullar. McCullar has vastly over-performed his projected marks coming into the season.

2024 Kansas Jayhawks

The 2024 Kansas Jayhawks were 23-11 (10-8) and earned a 4-seed in the NCAA Tournament. They made the Round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament before losing. The team’s Sports Reference page is here.

Offense

Defense

Total Adjusted PPGAB +/-

Value Seen 4 Ways

Cumulative Points Above Bubble on the Season Chart

Summary

  • KU’s big 3 of McCullar, Adams, and Dickinson accounted for 100.1% of the team’s WAR this season, making it the first time since at least 1993 where a Kansas team had its three best players be over 100% of total WAR.
  • Similarly, KU only has 3 rotation players (10%+ minutes played) with a positive value-score. This was the fewest above-bubble players on any KU team since 1993 (2017 had 4). On average, KU has 6.1 rotation players per season achieve a positive, or above-bubble, value.
  • The above waterfall chart does a great job showing where KU was getting its value from and where it was losing its value. This chart makes those who blame K.J. Adams or Hunter Dickinson look silly. The team’s struggles stemmed from Elmarko Jackson, Nick Timberlake, Parker Braun, and Jamari McDowell. Harris and Furphy, slightly sub-bubble, were overused due to the team’s lack of depth but still basically KU-level rotation guys.
  • To Harris’s credit, he did play better in higher-leverage game (positive 0.53 POCWAB).
  • The following players accounted for team-MVP games: K.J. Adams (11), Hunter Dickinson (9), Kevin McCullar (7), Dajuan Harris (3), Johnny Furphy (2), and Nicolas Timberlake (2).
  • KU’s average game-score at home (+8.34) was far superior to its average game-score in true road games (-0.59).
  • The injury to Kevin McCullar hurt the Jayhawks. Kansas was a +5.51 team in games where Kevin McCullar played, and -2.39 team in games where he did not (8 total games missed).
  • In a similar vein, KU was a +5.35 team through the Iowa State game. Kevin would miss the next game due to injury, while playing off-and-on and through pain some nights the rest of the season. In these final fourteen games, KU was a +1.23 team.

2024 Season blog-posts:

Wrapping Up the 2024 Season (3/25/2024)

Beware the Slides of March (3/14/2024)

The Final Push (3/11/2024)

K.J. Adams’ Defense (2/16/2024)

Hunter Dickinson’s Defense (2/7/2024)

KenPom Rankings, Game Score, Determining Best Teams (1/17/2024)

A Tale of Two Juans (1/11/2024)

Wrapping Up the Non-Con (1/2/2024)

Three’s Company (12/21/2023)

Dajuan, Dajuan, What is Wrong (12/11/2023)

The Battle for Net Extra Possessions (11/28/2023)

Kansas 89, Kentucky 84 (11/15/2023)

2024 Prediction Scenario (10/24/2023)

2024 Projections (10/19/2023)

More on the Bench

While KU continues to win close games, it is in spite of its bench players. This phenomenon was discussed earlier in the season, and the discrepancy between its starters and bench has remained. Self has continued to play Bobby Pettiford and Joseph Yesufu as reserve guards, with an oft-injured M.J. Rice having not playing in the last three games. Zuby Ejiofor has been KU’s most-frequently-used bench big man in conference play (27 minutes), followed by Zach Clemence (21 minutes) and Cam Martin (6 minutes). Ernest Udeh has played in only 1 second of conference play. Yes, just 1 second. This came at the end of the Oklahoma State game when he was guarding the inbounds pass.

Since the last time we examined their performance, the KU bench has hardly changed in overall value it provides. After 10 games, the bench was positioned to earn about -3.00 WAR over a normalized 36-game schedule. With 17 games in the book, this has hardly budged. The 2023 bench is still the worst bench in the 20-year Self-era, and with no signs of improvement would be only the 6th bench to produce negative-WAR value over that time span.

One thing to consider is that there is a sort of floor to this number. The worse the bench plays, the less Self will go to it. Through 5 conference games, the starters have averaged 32.5 minutes per game each. This is Self maxing out starter-minutes. He cannot play them much more, considering foul trouble will occur at times and fatigue will set in. With limited bench minutes, two things should keep the number somewhat afloat. First, the bench has less collective time on the floor to perform poorly. Second, in limited minutes the bench players should have the energy to play each defensive possession 100%. The bench should be giving maximum effort when they are out there, thus maximizing their potential value on a possession basis.

There are various ways to quantify the dreadfulness of the bench rotation. We have used the WAR value metric to compare the 2023 bench to others in the Self-era. Now we will compare the 2023 starters – Harris, McCullar, Dick, Wilson, and Adams – to the remainder of the team using Adj. Points AB +/-. This metric compares a player’s value, in points relative to a bubble-level opponent (about the 45th best team in D-1). Anything positive is quite good and should earn the player rotation minutes, with anything greater than +2.00 indicating a performance level that would start on almost any KU team.

The following numbers are thus presented per game, collectively divided between starters and bench.

The starting 5 produces an average difference of 13.16 points above a bubble team per game. They have been tremendous. This year’s starters have collectively out-done last season’s starting 5, which were +10.83 points above bubble per game. For the Missouri game, the starters were an absurd +39.84. They have only been below bubble-level as a group twice this season, first against Omaha (which was technically their worst opponent-adjusted performance) and second against Tennessee. Even then, these games were barely below the 0 threshold.

In contrast, the bench has played to a bubble-standard in only four games (23.5% of games). Ironically, its best game was against Omaha with a +5.02 performance, which is also the only time it has outperformed the starting 5. Its worst outing was against Southern Utah, in a game that was only close because of the reserves. Worse, the bench is trending downward. It hasn’t produced a positive outing since the Indiana game. Last season, on a team that featured seniors like Mitch Lightfoot, Jalen Coleman-Lands, and of course Remy Martin off the bench; it was collectively -0.52 and produced 17 games above bubble-standard (42.5%). This number was much higher at the end of the season when it counted, as the bench collectively produced an average game of +5.53 in the 9 games that made up the 2 tournaments. This was due to the great play of Remy, as well as a shortened rotation that played the senior reserves far more than the underclass backups. Suffice to say, the 2023 team doesn’t currently have that kind of fire-power waiting in the wings. It has underclassmen and transfers, none of whom have proven any capacity to be consistently great at the upper echelons of the D1 level.

Having a poor bench is no reason to despair. History has shown that teams with great starters can win in the Tournament despite having little help from its reserves. The 2012 runners-up had a very similar divide between a strong starting 5 and weak bench. However, even the 2012 bench had experience; Kevin Young was a redshirt junior and Conner Teahan a fifth-year senior. The 2016 team is another good comparison. It earned the number-one overall seed and made an Elite 8 on the backs of its experienced starters, getting little from its bench.

There are a few potential bright spots to consider when pondering the bench situation. First, is that KU has talented young players on its roster. It really only takes the development of one or two of the following by March for this situation to drastically improve: Pettiford, Yesufu, Rice, Ejiofor, Udeh, Clemence. If KU can comfortably play any of these guys 10 minutes or so and expect a consistent performance, it can better maintain leads that its starting 5 works to build. The second consideration doesn’t have to do with the bench, but with the makeup of the starting 5. The starters are all capable of playing a heavy-load, thus reducing the negative-impact the bench has collectively brought. K.J. Adams is far more like a wing than a post in terms of fitness and durability, meaning that even the 5-spot needs fewer bench minutes this season than it historically does.

Lastly, where should the team go from here? In comparing Per 100 points above bubble, there is good reason to like the potential development of Udeh and Ejiofor. These two have clearly been superior to other bench-players, particularly the other 5 men. While Ejiofor has gotten in games consistently, Udeh has been relegated to DNPs of late. Perhaps this should be reexamined, particularly if Clemence continues to defend at a poor level.

There hasn’t been much value from the reserve guards/wings. Injuries have plagued all four (with Cuffe still out), and even when healthy none have provided consistent value. The team loses scoring ability, size, and defensive skill when it goes to the bench and gains little. Shifting K.J. down to the 4 when Jalen is out is honestly a worthy consideration.

How is K.J. Adams Adding Value?

The “5” spot in the rotation this year was hotly debated by KU fans coming into the season. Some like Zach Clemence due to his perceived shooting ability. Others were high on 5-star freshman Ernest Udeh with his 6’11 frame. Other have pointed out Zuby Ejiofor’s ability, especially now that we have seen his rebounding skill. Still others wanted to see what D-2 transfer Cam Martin could do, given his prolific scoring ability at the lower level.

Despite all this, the man who has won the starting job is K.J. Adams. Undersized for a 5, Adams is neither a post-up scorer nor an outside shooter (he is 0-1 from 3, and 4-13 total on shots outside the paint). His free throw shooting is poor (8-21). Yet, he finds a way to average a respectable 8.2 PPG, currently good for fourth on the team.

His defensive rebounding rate is 8.7%, which is very low for a post player. Despite this, and his lack of size for his position, he attacks the offensive glass effectively. His 4.5 RPG is not great, but it does add some value for Kansas. He blocks a fair number of shots (his 9 leads the team). He has 24 assists as well, good for third. On the other hand, he only has 9 steals, which is the fewest among the starters.

The question, “how is K.J. Adams adding value” is not meant to disparage Adams. It is merely a curiosity. He plays an unorthodox style, yet does so effectively for Kansas. Through 10 games, Adams has added +0.83 points per game above bubble. Anything positive is a good score, and Adams’ score indicates he would earn minutes on about any Kansas team (although there are many years in which he wouldn’t start at either front-court position).

Let’s first answer this through breaking down his value stats as calculated on this website. Adams is adding +0.83 per game. Broken down, his value is +0.04 from offense and +0.79 from defense. Let’s start with his offense.

Offense +0.04

This first split breaks down K.J.’s offensive value into Production and Efficiency. These are points of value relative to bubble, with 0.00 being bubble-level. K.J. hasn’t been super-productive. He is averaging 8.2 PPG, which in 25 minutes per game, is not outstanding. However, he is getting those points through efficient play, which cancels out the low productivity. Basketball Reference has him with a TS% of 64.1%, which is second-highest among the rotation players. He gets a lot of his points from layups and dunks. Most of these are set up from a teammate, as he is scoring 79.2% of his points off an assist.

Another way to breakdown his value is through the following categories. K.J.’s Offensive Efficiency is 1.49, second-highest among the rotation players and best among the starters. We see that his Points accounted for per game at 7.6, or below his official PPG mark. This is because he scores off an assist more than he sets up plays for himself or others. The True shooting percentage of 58.4% is lower than the calculated one on Basketball Reference, as assisted baskets are discounted in this formula. Still, it is a very good number for one who is not traditionally thought of as a good shooter. He knows his limitations, and takes shots that are good for him. This validated by his Shot Frequency of 14.4%, which is below the mean of 20%. His Impact, however, on offense is at 17.4%, partly due to his solid assist numbers (for a big) and his offensive rebounding marks. At Missouri, Adams had a career-high 19 points. All of his points came through dunks (4), layups (5), or free throws (1). He found gaps and finished. He also made two nice passes to Kevin McCullar for assists. Here is a highlight video to get a visual of his offensive play.

A lot of Adams’ baskets are of him starting away from the goal and diving to the rim, although he scored a few this game in the post by sealing his man top-side. Still, his baskets are all at the rim. According to the box score stats, the last “jumper” made by K.J. Adams was against Tennessee, at a play at the 18:39 mark of the 2nd half. In this play, Adams finished a floater through contact while in the lane. Even Adams’ shots which aren’t layups are still relatively close.

We can break down offensive value further. This will convert elements of offense into three buckets…scoring, ball-handling, and rebounding. Scoring accounts for a player’s ability to score. It can be through volume, good outside shooting, getting to the line, or finishing tough shots. Doesn’t matter. All that matters is points. Ball-handling takes into account assists and turnovers. Assists are good, turnovers are bad. A conservative player with the ball like Gradey Dick might not turn it over much (increasing his handling score), but this comes with a price (fewer assists, which decreases the score). Rebounding looks at all the offensive rebounds won by a player, as well as any hustle play to retain possession after a teammate has a near-turnover (such as the loose-ball K.J. dove on the floor for in the above video).

K.J. Adams’ scores break down like this. Instead of having this as a per-game stat, it is per-100 possessions. This coverts to a +0.09 score. Adams’ Scoring value is below-bubble. This isn’t too surprising, as he isn’t a tremendous scorer. Still, his Scoring value isn’t terrible either. It is above Udeh, Pettiford, Clemence, and Ejiofor. Only Yesufu and Rice grade out as better bench-scorers among the rotation.

Ball-handling is also better than it looks. Adams is a post-man, and traditionally they have fewer assists. For a 5, having a score close to 0.00 is really good. Of the other big men, Adams tops Udeh and Ejiofor by a wide margin. Zach Clemence, with only 2 official turnovers this year, is slightly better in this category (but well behind in others).

Lastly, K.J. Adams is a solid offensive rebounder, and it is this category which puts him above 0.00 on the offensive value scale. Although he is actually behind the other bigs in the rotation on a per-possession basis, he is still quite valuable on the offensive glass. His offensive rebounds against Omaha were certainly noteworthy, as they provided many second-shots that game. Next, we will break down his defensive value in a similar way.

Defense +0.79

Defensive production and defensive efficiency are somewhat counterintuitive to think about. Defense here is thought of as being the inverse of offense. Therefore, defensive production looks at how well you prevent the other team from scoring, and defensive efficiency looks at how well you can block shots and collect rebounds, steals, and forced turnovers. The more defensive possessions you win, the more “leeway” you have in allowing points while still maintaining a good defensive efficiency score.

For Adams, he is stronger at not allowing points than he is on the defensive efficiency side of things. To note, this stat isn’t saying he has a 0.24 Def Eff. Rather, it is saying he adds 0.24 points per game above a bubble player’s expected defensive efficiency. At any rate, both subcategories of defense are above-bubble.

We will now go down the line, looking at statistical metrics that feed into the +0.79 Adj +/- value score. First, we see the defensive efficiency, not as a value-score as before but as the real defensive efficiency rating. At 0.94, this is better than the replacement efficiency of 0.977. In other words, given KU’s opponents, what we expect from a KU rotation player is to have a defensive efficiency rating of 0.977 or lower. Adams is lower than 0.977, albeit by just a small amount.

This rating is a product of a few things, none bigger than his points allowed. K.J. is allowing 7.5 points per game. We know from above that he is producing 7.6 points per game. So, despite him not being a solid scorer, he still produces more points than he allows. His defense is good enough to keep him on the floor.

The next column is also important, as it converts the 7.5 points allowed per game into a per possession metric. At 10.2 points allowed per 60 possessions, K.J.’s defense can be more easily compared to others. Looking at others battling for minutes at the 5-spot, we note that K.J.’s is better than Udeh’s points allowed per 60 (14.1) and Ejiofor’s (14.4). Clemence actually has a lower points-against per 60 rate (8.3), however this is in far fewer minutes. We aren’t sure if this is significant, first because Clemence has only played 45 minutes and second because Clemence doesn’t have to worry about things like foul trouble. Last season, Clemence was the worst rotation player on the team in giving up points. So, more data is needed. Cam Martin doesn’t have enough playing time yet to have a reasonable score.

The final metric we look is the possessions won, both per game and per 60 possessions. Adams only winning 6.4 defensive possessions per 60 is not good for a 5-man. Normally, the 5 will get a lot of defensive rebounds due to his height and proximity to the rim. Again, to compare against the other 5’s, we see that Udeh has 10.8 possessions won per 60 and Ejiofor has 13.8. Clemence (6.1) is slightly worse than Adams on this metric, again with limited playing time.

This graph shows Adams’ defensive value in terms of points per 100 possessions. The first category, Stinginess, indicates how well a defender does at not allowing his man to score. Here, Adams is better than the replacement, bubble-level defender by 1.94 points per 100 possessions. The next category is titled Pressure, but it refers to steals and other forced turnovers. Adams is slightly above bubble-level. Note that guards tend to score more highly in this category, so for KU to have its starting 5 above-bubble is a good sign. The last category is rebounding. The story here is different. At first, it doesn’t look so bad for Adams, just slightly below-bubble at -0.25 per 100 possessions. That’s a difference of 1 point over the course of about 8 games or so for Adams when compared to a bubble-level player. But remember that these values are not position-adjusted. Comparing him to other power forwards and centers, we see that each is well-above him (Wilson +1.69, Udeh +1.50, Clemence +1.38, Ejiofor +4.80). Even Gradey Dick has been a better defensive rebounder this season than Adams.

Wrapping everything up, let’s answer the question. How is K.J. Adams adding value? It’s truly very strange. Not that he is adding value, he is a great athlete and hard worker. He adds value on offense not through scoring but with high efficiency dunks and layups. But unlike other starting 5’s in recent KU history, such as David McCormack or Udoka Azubuike, K.J. Adams doesn’t score through post moves but by starting outside and cutting to the rim off of ball-screens and ball-rotation. He handles the ball fine for a big-man, which helps offset his lower-than-expected scoring marks. His strongest attribute is his offensive rebounding, but it is less through tip-ins or other boards at the rim as in the past and more through hustling down long rebounds.

Conversely, his defense is the reverse. He adds value through his defensive stinginess. Sure, he doesn’t score a bunch. But he doesn’t give up many points to his man on the other end. Furthermore, he gets enough steals and forced turnovers to add value, almost balancing out his negative-value ball-handling on offense. Lastly, despite being a strong offensive rebounder, K.J. is a minus defensive rebounder, a truly odd occurrence for any power forward given that these marks aren’t position-adjusted. Any position-adjusted look at these numbers would be even more skewed.

But we can think even more basic on this. K.J. Adams adds value because he competes. Game-in, game-out, he attempts to be better than his opponent. First to the ball, making plays on defense, sealing his man, switching onto any type of player while on defense, etc. In the 10 games so far, K.J. has produced positive value-scores in all but 2. Even after adjusting for opponent, K.J. has been positive in 7 out of 10 games, including each of the last 5. Sure, he has areas he can improve on. But regardless of whom he matches up against, he wants to win. He wants to win that matchup, that possession, that game. That’s why he is the starter, and why he will play a big role on this team in the future if he can continue to compete.

Kansas 95 St. John’s 75

KU defeated St. John’s by 20 in New York in the Big 12 / Big East Challenge game, improving to 6-1 in the non-conference. Below are the value scores for each player.

Christian Braun recorded the best game of any Jayhawk this season at +13.39. David McCormack had his second consecutive good outing, and both Ochai Agbaji and Remy Martin performed at a level we’ve been accustomed to seeing. K.J. Adams actually won 6 possessions from rebounds (5 offensive) in only 6 minutes, two more than what the official box score gave him. Despite only scoring 8 points so far in 7 games, K.J. is actually adding offensive value this season because of his rebounds.