Tag: Dickinson

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.

Hunter Dickinson’s Defense

All KU fans agree that Hunter Dickinson is a skilled and valuable offensive player. Some argue that Dickinson’s defensive deficiencies (they take for granted he’s a poor defender) severely undercut his offensive value. This post will examine Hunter’s defense by comparing him to other players on this season’s roster as well as KU centers in seasons past.

A player can be a plus defender in one of two broad ways. He can either do so by limiting the amount of points his man scores or he can be a good defender by getting the ball back for his team (such as rebounding). Note that these are related. A defender getting a rebound is also preventing his man from scoring on a putback attempt. The very best defenders are good at both aspects–they limit their opponents’ good looks and they get the ball back for their team.

Applying this to Hunter in particular, we want to examine how often he is most responsible for the other team scoring (compared to others) and how often he wins possession back through a block, rebound, steal, or forced turnover (compared to others).

Using the Charting methods, we calculate that Hunter has allowed 276 points in 23 games this season (12.0 ppg). When we convert this to a 60-possession basis, this comes to 12.9 per 60. This conversion is done to compare Hunter to other players.

Next, we can count the number of stops KU gets because Hunter gets the ball back through either a block, rebound, steal, or forced turnover. As rebounds are most common way a defense gets the ball back after a stop, Hunter’s importance is mostly by being a great rebounder. He averages 10.5 possessions “won” over 60 defensive possessions.

For the 2024 team, we can consider this table.

Looking at the Points Against Per 60 column, this shows that Hunter (allowing 12.9 per 60) is worse than the other starters save Furphy (13.0 per 60). However, he is better than his backup Parker Braun (15.4). Additionally, only K.J. Adams (7.9) is significantly better than Hunter at disallowing points. Harris and McCullar have been in the middle-of-the-pack.

If we move to the far-right column, we see possession winners per 60. In this case, Hunter is clear-and-away the best at getting the ball back following a miss or through a forced turnover.

When some think of defense, they mostly consider the first aspect of this, or on-ball defense. And this aspect is very important. Not getting beat, not fouling, closing out on shooters, forcing a player to pick up his dribble and pass, etc. are all ways a defender can make it more difficult for the opponent to score. But the second aspect, or coming away with the ball, is also important. First-shot defense that doesn’t win the ball back will lead to second and third chances that can allow points. A player who might not be a great first-shot defender can still add value if he prevents opponents from getting second-chances. So, we need a way to combine these elements of defense into one number that estimates player value.

Using theory regarding the relationship to points and possession in basketball, we can calculate how valuable these defensive metrics are. We will now include the defensive value metric in the final column of the table.

This final column estimates, in points per game, how valuable a certain defender is when compared to a replacement (bubble-level) player. Due to his stingy on ball-defense, K.J. has graded out as KU’s best overall defender. But the second-best defender has been Hunter Dickinson–not because he is always great at disallowing points–but because he limits teams’ second-chances. Imagine KU without Hunter on the floor. Teams would get many more baskets through second-chance opportunities.

This is common among bigs in today’s game. The prevailing offensive strategy involves getting opposing 5-men away from the basket (to clear driving lanes and cutting angles). As Hunter is involved in ball-screen defense and plays on the perimeter at times while on defense, he is often put in situations where he can find himself out of position. This leads to breakdowns, rotations, and open shots for opponents. But this isn’t always what happens. Other times he defends fine, and the possession ends with a missed shot that he has a great chance of rebounding due to his height and good rebounding technique.

We can break down the defensive value provided by 2024’s roster further, using 3 categories and a Per 100 possession basis. These three categories are: Stinginess (or points allowed), Pressure (forced turnovers/steals), and Boards (rebounds).

Hunter’s Stinginess score is below-bubble, but at -0.65 points we estimate that it only costs KU less than a point per 100 possessions. His Pressure (+0.34) and Boards (+2.93) make up for it, leading him to be a +2.63 player over 100 possessions. This is nearly 4 points better than his backup, Parker Braun has been. He is also better defensively than all other players save K.J. Far from being a liability, Hunt’s been a valuable asset for the 2024 defense.

We can also compare Hunter to 5-men of past seasons. Below is a table of all players labeled center who’ve played 10% of minutes on the season or more since 2018. This includes 9 player-seasons.

Here we see a pattern. 8 of the 9 centers on this list have negative Stinginess value, showing that they are allowing points more often than the average defender. This makes sense. Teams are attacking the slowness of the big men to find an advantage that leads to points. However, once we move right, we see that the 5-men can Pressure and Board better than average. So while your guards are likely to be better at preventing open shots, they struggle to get the ball back. Hunter’s rebounding better than any recent center not named Udoka. Additionally, his overall defense is 3rd best out of 9 centers since 2018, again only behind 2019 and 2020 Azubuike.

We can expand this more, just with less detail. Since 1993, there have been 192 players who have played at least 40% of the team’s minutes during the season. Of this 192, only 45 have had a per game defensive value as good as Hunter’s having this year. He’s objectively around the 76th percentile of defensive players in recent Kansas history. Ignore people who don’t know how to track defensive value and fail to consider all relevant factors of defense.

In addition to tracking individual defense, we can confirm these general findings by looking at proxy metrics. One such metric would be points in the paint. This season, for reference, KU’s offense is averaging 40.1 points per game from paint scoring. That’s what a good offense does. A large chunk of this is from Hunter (although K.J. and Kevin are also doing well at the rim). So let’s use KU’s offense as a comparison to KU’s defense. The thought would be that if Hunter’s offensive-value is being wiped away by poor defense, then KU will be allowing nearly as many points in the paint as it is scoring.

This isn’t the case at all. KU is only averaging 25.8 points per game in the paint. This is a difference of 14.3 points, which is more than the overall point difference (10.9). KU is winning points in the paint but losing in all other areas (that is FT’s + 3’s + 2’s outside the lane). This is just further confirmation of Hunter’s value.

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.

The Battle for Net Extra Possessions

KenPom has Kansas as the 6th best eFG% offense and the 14th best eFG% defense in nation, counting only D-1 matchups. This spread, of 18.7%, is the best in the nation and nearly 2.5% better than the second-best of BYU. To reference, the difference from #2 BYU to the #10 team is smaller than the gap between Kansas and BYU. Which is to say, KU’s shot quality is far superior to its opponents in the brief number of games played so far.

While KU is winning the shot quality battle, it is losing the other battle, that is the battle for net extra possessions. A net extra possession means offensive rebounds minus turnovers. Teams that turn it over too much lose out on chances to shoot. Teams that hit the offensive glass add shooting chances. We want to find the net of these numbers.

Collectively, KU’s opponents have had -1 net extra possessions, meaning KU has forced 1 additional turnover than it has allowed offensive rebounds. This doesn’t sound all that bad on the defense’s behalf, until you see what KU’s offense has done. In its 6 games, KU has turned it over 41 more times than it has got an offensive board, meaning the team is -41 in this metric. If we find the difference between these numbers, we see that KU’s opponents have had 40 more chances to score than KU has this year, solely due to turnover and offensive rebounding differences. This works out to -6.7 per game. KU is effectively getting 7 fewer scoring chances than its opponent on average. If we only consider the top opponents, who to this point are Kentucky, Marquette, and Tennessee; KU is -11.3 per game. Knowing this, its amazing the Jayhawks were able to take 2 of those 3 games.

OpponentKU NEPOpp NEPDiff
North Carolina Central-60-6
Manhattan-3-6+3
Kentucky-6+7-13
Chaminade-8-5-3
Marquette-80-8
Tennessee-10+3-13
TOTAL-41-1-40
NEP means Net Extra Possessions

The silver lining is that KU should improve on this possession battle. Much of this can be attributed to effort and newcomers learning how they need to play. Valuing the basketball and hitting the glass is something that will be expected for those looking to earn minutes alongside the “big 4” of Harris, McCullar, Adams, and Dickinson (KU also needs more from Harris and Adams on this front). As long as KU continues to get good looks, and having Hunter is a large reason for that, they should be fine. In tonight’s tune-up against Eastern Illinois, KU needs to dominate the glass and turnover margin in order to prepare for Connecticut and other tough games that will come later in the year.

Kansas 89, Kentucky 84

The 2023 version of the Champions Classic proved to be a classic, with a high-action, fast-paced game between the two winningest programs in college basketball history. In the end, our beloved Jayhawks prevailed, but not before giving up a 9-0 lead and being down as much as 14 in the second half.

First things, first. Here are the PPGAB +/- scores from last night, and these will be referenced below. This was quite a game, as so much happened.

Game Notes:

  • Hunter Dickinson (27 points, 21 rebounds) became Kansas’ first 20/20 player since Thomas Robinson (2012 season vs. North Dakota) and the first to record 20 and 20 against a power conference opponent since Nick Collison (2003 season vs. Texas).
  • This milestone featuring traditional stats is paralleled by a team-best +13.12 value score. This value score is Dickinson’s second +10 game of the season (NCCU) and his second team-best game (Manhattan).
  • Dickinson’s value score was quite bad to begin the game, as the charting indicated he was responsible for 16 of Kentucky’s first 24 points due to sagging defense and over-helps (i.e. initiating late double-teams that allow for an easy escape pass). Over the rest of the game, he was not responsible for any more points allowed. It’s estimated that Dickinson’s opponent-adjusted value score over the final 26 minutes was better than +20.
  • As rare as Dickinson’s 20/20 milestone was, an even rarer event occurred with Kevin McCullar recording the program’s third official triple-double in its history. (This excludes the Chamberlain era, when certain stats weren’t officially kept). McCullar was the first Jayhawk to get the triple-double by registering 10+ assists, as the prior two (Cole Aldrich, Jeff Withey) did so with points, rebounds, and blocks.
  • McCullar’s 12 point, 10 rebound, 10 assist night was also bolstered by a stingy defensive effort. McCullar’s defensive PPGAB +/- of +5.41 is the most valuable defensive performance of any player in any game so far this season.
  • McCullar’s triple-double came in the last second of the game, literally, as he grabbed his 10th board following a missed 3-point shot from Kentucky.
  • The Kansas/Kentucky game was a high-paced game, with 81 recorded possessions from Charting the Hawks. KenPom’s box score shows 83, and his line score shows 80. Either way, the fast tempo allowed more possessions which in turn allowed more opportunities for Dickinson and McCullar to record their milestone nights.
  • KU is currently the fastest-paced team in KenPom, with an adjusted tempo score of 77.2. In the Self-era, KU’s highest rank on the tempo metric is 40th (2004), and the Jayhawks have only been above 70.0 in terms of adjusted tempo 2 times in 20 seasons under Self.
  • Not to be overlooked, Dajuan Harris scored a career high 23 points on 5/6 shooting from 3 (with his only miss being a desperation heave following a broken play with the shot clock expiring). Harris graded out as KU’s second-best offensive player against Kentucky.
  • This is in stark contrast to Harris’ point output in the team’s prior 2 games. Against North Carolina Central, Harris didn’t take a shot from the field or line, and against Manhattan he scored only 2 points on 1-4 shooting. Yet when Kentucky went under screens or put help defenders on the likes of Hunter Dickinson, Harris was there to make them pay by his ability to score.
  • Defensively, Harris’ game was not his sharpest. He went under multiple screens leading to easy Kentucky 3-point opportunities and gave the Wildcats some run-out layups by careless live-ball turnovers. In all, he was responsible for 19 Kentucky points and graded out as the second-worst defender for Kansas in the game, slightly ahead of K.J. Adams.
  • Speaking of K.J. Adams, the junior continued his explosive scoring with a 16 point outing on 8-11 shooting. While not a shooter, he scores off of cuts, lobs, and put backs better than almost anyone I’ve seen. Adams also added 3 assists.
  • Adams’ defense was the team’s worst, and he fouled out with under 4 minutes to play from a careless loose-ball foul, gifting Kentucky 2 free throws.
  • Freshman Jamari McDowell was Adams’ replacement, despite not playing during the first 36:14 of the game. McDowell would play the final 3:46, during which KU would go on a 14-3 run to win.
  • McDowell didn’t allow a point to an explosive Kentucky offense, continuing his streak this season. In nearly 17 1/2 minutes of play, McDowell has not allowed his opponent to score.
  • McDowell also put the finishing touches on the win, grabbing a rebound following a 3-point miss that, had it gone in, would have tied the game for Kentucky. After being immediately fouled, McDowell calmly made both free throws to set the final margin of 5.
  • In the first 3 minutes and final 3 minutes of the game, KU outscored UK 20-1. The Cats were 14 points better during the middle 34.
  • Kentucky shot 38 3 point shots, equaling the total of FG attempts they had inside the arc. The team from Lexington was 9-18 to begin the game, allowing them to first come back from 9-0 and then take the lead. However, they would cool off considerably, hitting only 3 3-pointers in the second half (none after the 8:00 mark), and finish 12-38 for the game. This works out to 31.6%, which is worse than the 33.3% the Jayhawks shot (6-18).
  • Freshmen reserve guards Shepperd and Dillingham went 7-9 from 3 for the Wildcats. The rest of the team, including Antonio Reeves, went 5-29 (Reeves 3-17). When Kentucky was making its 3’s, it looked unbeatable. It was running, hustling for loose balls, and scoring in spurts. But this pace, which helped Kentucky build up a 14 point lead, allowed Kansas to come back once the shots stopped falling.

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)

2024 Projections

KenPom released his preseason ratings earlier in the week. KU is ranked 2nd with a 26.31 AdjEM. This was very close to the player build-up model that I predicted (26.16). See below:

PlayerOff_PGDef_PGTot_PGPer100% Min
Dajuan Harris+0.20+2.30+2.50+4.2085.1%
Elmarko Jackson-0.10+0.20+0.10+0.2068.1%
Kevin McCullar-0.25+1.96+1.71+3.2575.1%
K.J. Adams+0.45+0.48+0.93+1.9070.0%
Hunter Dickinson+3.80+1.38+5.18+9.2580.0%
Nicolas Timberlake+0.62-0.31+0.32+0.7560.0%
Johnny Furphy-0.54-0.30-0.84-6.3019.1%
Jamari McDowell-0.62-0.10-0.72-6.0217.1%
Parker Braun-0.52+0.13-0.39-2.7520.1%
Michael Jankovich+0.15-0.30-0.15-5.001.4%
Justin Cross-0.08-0.08-0.16-6.501.0%
Chris Carter-0.08-0.08-0.16-6.501.0%
Wilder Evers-0.12-0.13-0.25-10.000.5%
Patrick Cassidy-0.20-0.10-0.30-12.000.5%
Dillon Wilhite-0.12-0.13-0.25-8.001.0%
Zach Clemence
Charlie McCarthy
TOTAL+2.97+5.53+8.51+12.16100.0%
Projected to Redshirt

Incoming transfer and Big 12 preseason player of the year Hunter Dickinson is the highest projected value player by far. This is due to his consistency while at Michigan as a prolific scorer and solid rebounder. Coach Self has called him the best offensive big man he’s had while at Kansas. In addition, knock on wood, Hunter has been healthy, having missed only 2 games in 3 seasons at Ann Arbor.

If there’s one question mark, it comes on the defensive end. Given the tendency among the game to play pick-n-roll ball and bring out the opponents’ 5-man, it can be a certainty that Dickinson will play plenty as the pick-n-roll defender and away from the basket. If teams can exploit him on this, it could bring down his score on the defensive end quite a bit. What Dickinson has going for him on defense is his rebounding prowess and low foul rates.

Dajuan Harris is projected to be KU’s second most-valuable player. His durability (estimated 85.1% minutes played) will be called upon now that KU is down to only 2 real ball-handlers (Elmarko Jackson) among its scholarship players. We project a slight improvement from last season’s Dejuan on both sides of the ball. He should see an increased number of 3-point attempts thanks to the departures of Gradey Dick and Jalen Wilson.

Kevin McCullar’s unexpected return to Kansas will see him in an expanded roll, yet his shooting (which has consistently hovered around 30% from 3) is still a question. If he shoots as well as he has been rumored to in practice, he could make the highest leap of anyone. McCullar’s value comes in his defense; namely steals and rebounds. He defends adequately one-on-one but will give up an occasional basket.

K.J. Adams is sliding down to the 4 after playing the 5-spot primarily last season. He is even less of a shooter than McCullar, although with a true 3-point shooting center in Dickinson, having a power forward who can shoot is less of a requirement for spacing-purposes. K.J.’s strength and quickness will get him more baskets than you’d otherwise think by just watching his game. He gets putbacks, makes nice cuts to the rim, and will get the occasional alley-oop. His defense could also take a step up now that he will be guarding opposing 4 men instead of the 5’s.

The next two names are battling to be the 5th starter at the off-guard position. Nicolas Timberlake has a slightly higher prediction, but everyone agrees Elmarko Jackson has the higher ceiling. Jackson is predicted as a first-round pick by many NBA mocks, something that hasn’t been taken into consideration in these preseason numbers but still should be in the back of your mind. For Timberlake, he’s the team’s best shooter and should generate spacing on the offensive end. His defense might not be great, but wings who move their feet and don’t fall asleep on defense usually grade out well.

Jackson’s rating is purely based upon his incoming class rating. He should have a fine season, but true freshmen rarely perform at the star level. Anything around replacement level will be enough to help this team. Jackson has Harris to guide him and guys like Dickinson and Adams to play through. He should thrive being around so many veterans.

After the top 6, the projected skill level drops. This isn’t the end of the world; KU’s top 6 should get the majority of minutes. Even including minutes played during blow-out non-conference games, KU’s top 6 is projected to get 87.7% of the total court-time. But the remaining 3 scholarship players will be called upon to do enough while filling in for the starters.

Parker Braun’s Per100 numbers are expected to tick up from last season (as he plays for a better coach in a better system and is a year older), and because his minutes should tick down it will help his per game mark assuming he gets into each game. He should perform comparably to Zuby Ejiofor last season. Braun was a good pickup given the departure of Ejiofor and fellow big man Ernest Udeh. Despite gaining Dickinson, KU got worse regarding its depth on the inside. It’s unfortunate the Jayhawks couldn’t hold on to a blossoming player like Udeh, but it’s part of the process with the portal. Key pickups can mean losing a young talent that doesn’t want to wait to play.

The remaining two wings are projected to be well-below bubble-level. As freshmen, Jamari McDowell and Johnny Furphy wouldn’t normally be asked to do much aside from bring energy and play their roles while filling in for the likes of McCullar, Adams, Jackson, and Timberlake. However, Coach Self has mentioned both as potential starters still. While this is likely coach-speak, it’s good to hear that both are holding their own.

Jamari McDowell’s score is predicated on his incoming rank. We see him as a better defender but less polished scorer than Furphy. Both players are quite athletic and have decent size/length. McDowell is one of the remaining initial commits that is projected to get playing time thanks to the departure or dropped commitments from numerous other wings. Furphy is a late signee who jumped on board after it was apparent that KU needed wing depth and has been compared to Svi.

Each player’s Per 100 predictions are better than M.J. Rice and Bobby Pettiford’s seasons last year. But it is tough to see either being key cogs in the rotation. Freshmen traditionally are either role players or one-and-done types.

The Jayhawks are redshirting Zach Clemence, a move confirmed by Bill Self many times. This means only 9 scholarship players. However, there are also 7 walk-ons with a few being skilled and athletic former scholarship players at other schools. Justin Cross and Chris Carter are those who played elsewhere before being invited walk-ons. Sharpshooter Michael Jankovich is also a name to watch out for. With the limited depth, a frustrated Self might turn to Jank in a pre-conference if he needs a floor-spacer. He’s done something similar with Clay Young in 2018.

The TEAM score is projected to be +8.51, a number that gets them an estimated KenPom AdjEM score of 26.16 (or 0.15 points away from KenPom’s own preseason mark). This mark is just an average estimate, one that includes the possibility of injury or underperformance from key pieces. A TEAM score of this projection would earn a 2-seed most often, of course depending on how many wins and losses the team has in close games. KU’s defense also should grade out better than its offense, something that KenPom predicts (KP has KU as the #9 offense and #1 defense).

Recent predictions have underestimated KU’s best players (2023 Jalen Wilson, 2022 Ochai Agbaji) while overestimating the contributions of the bench. This year we made sure to keep Dickinson higher than +5.00 despite questions on his defense. Another decision we made is to have each of KU’s top 9 players be expected to play in the full allotment of games. Perhaps Furphy or McDowell will DNP a few games but it shouldn’t be too many…barring injury.

It should be an exciting season. KU is bringing in the nation’s top transfer, fan-favorite veterans, a “legacy” transfer in Parker Braun, and solid freshmen with different skillsets.