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 2^nd 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.