Most Recent Posts
- Receiver Jeff Badet has broken fibula, receiver A.J. Legree “gonna quit and go play somewhere else”
- Jojo Kemp: “I’m trying to make this like high school again”
- Alex Poythress to return to Kentucky for junior season
- Jordan Swindle improving, becoming leader going against “freak” Bud Dupree in practice
- Julius Randle knew he had to sacrifice just like others for Kentucky to succeed
- Dakari Johnson appreciated the way Kentucky fans “stuck with us”
- Neal Brown would like one running back to emerge, but okay with running back by committee
- Julius Randle “can’t speak” on what Harrisons will do, but expects UK to have “amazing team” again
On Saturday, the Cats began the final stretch of five games to close out the SEC regular season, and three of those five games provide an opportunity to avenge an earlier loss. The first rematch ended with the Cats getting their revenge. However, much to the chagrin of most Big Blue Fans, the Cats not only required overtime to get the job done, the Cats could not finish the job until Julius Randle transformed a lame attack of the basket by James Young into a game winning basket with only 2.5 second left in the extra period.
Just as Qualls picked off an offensive rebound of the Madden miss and slammed it into the basket at the end of overtime in Fayetteville on January 14 to hand the Cats a 2 point loss in overtime, this “fortunate” bounce of the ball gave the Cats the 1 point win in overtime over LSU.
Ironically, those same Arkansas Razorbacks, who “stole” the 2-point OT win from the Cats in January, are the next opponent in this revenge minded final stretch. The Hogs will come to Rupp Thursday night to face a Kentucky team that still has revenge on its mind.
After the Hogs beat the Cats, they stood proud with a 12-4 overall record, but only 1-2 in the SEC after dropping their SEC opener to Texas A&M and dropping a 2 pointer in overtime to Florida prior to Kentucky’s visit to Fayetteville. Immediately following the Hogs’ win over the Cats, they proceeded to lose four of their next 5 games, as their record dropped to an unimpressive 13-8, and 2-6 in the SEC. It seemed that Arkansas was headed for a dismal SEC finish on February 1 on their trip back to Fayetteville from Baton Rouge following their 14 point loss to the Hogs. However, the Hogs have won five of the six games since that February 1 loss to elevate their record to 18-9, and are one of seven SEC teams standing at 7-7 with 4 games remaining. Arkansas is probably playing their best basketball of the season over the last 3 weeks as they prepare for their rematch with the Cats.
Those who look for positives to take from a 1 point OT win over LSU at Rupp point to the ability to finish with a game winning play that was so elusive to this team from November through January as a sign that the Cats are “getting it”. Perhaps they are. However, the chatter in the Bluegrass since Sunday about the Hogs has been they win in Fayetteville, and loss on the road. However, two of their five wins over the last 3 weeks have come on the road in the SEC. I am confident that the Hog fans are pointing to this recent road success by their Hogs as a sign that the Hogs are “getting it” too. Perhaps they are.
ARKANSAS will bring their 19-9, 7-7 SEC record into Rupp on Thursday night. ARKANSAS’s schedule strength has been 0.5699 (105th). ARKANSAS has averaged 74 possessions per game, scoring 80.5 ppg (1.089 ppp) and allowing 70.5 ppg (0.954 ppp). ARKANSAS has turned the ball over on 15.8% of its possessions while forcing turnovers on 23.6% of opponent possessions. On the Boards, ARKANSAS has secured an offensive rebounding rate of 32.7% about 4% above the 29% NCAA average, and a defensive rebounding rate of 65.8%, about 3% below the NCAA average.
In contrast, the Cats have averaged about 69 possessions per game, producing 78.2 ppg (1.135 ppp) and allowing 66.9 ppg (0.971 ppp). The Cats have committed turnovers on 17.7% of its possessions and forced turnovers on 16.0% of opponent possessions. On the Boards, the Cats’ rebounding rates have been 42.8% and 68.9% on the offensive and defensive ends against a schedule strength of 0.6600 (#36).
Based on this distribution, the analysis tips in favor of Kentucky by 12 points, 80-68 in a game played at a pace of 71 possessions for the Cats and 71 possessions for ARKANSAS. Pomeroy figures the game in Kentucky’s favor by 11 points, 82-71 at a pace of 72 possessions.
See how other Big Blue Fans see this game’s likely outcome here: http://www.bigbluefans4uk.com/2013-14DataandWritings/247_PREDICTIONS/28_ARK.htm
You can enter your prediction at any time prior to tip off by visiting the 247 Sports prediction thread for this game at: http://kentucky.247sports.com/Board/296/Arkansas-Prediction-Thread-26086564/1
By RICHARD CHEEKS
Some say the team is “not playing hard” and others “the players are not committed to the program, only to their NBA futures” and yet others “that they are playing better ball” but all of those kind of statements lack any objective measure to support the assertion. How does one measure “how hard” a player is playing? How can one know what a player is or is not committed to? These subjective assertions can’t be objectified, if that is a word.
However, the quality of performance can be measured. Here are a couple of ways of thinking about it.
This shows the adjusted offensive, defensive and Net Game Efficiencies of the 5 Calipari teams at UK. For 2013, I have two measures, a snapshot after 22 games, prior to Nerlen’s injury, and the season ending conditions. For 2014, all we can show is what has occurred, through 24 games.
People want to justify this team because it has such a strong offense, and it has, but its defense has been very bad. Last year’s team, through 22 games, was playing outstanding defense, but struggled offensively, thus the general perception of how bad it was again was driven by the offensive side of the equation. However, the Net Game Efficiency of both teams were the same. NGE is the most reliable measurement of quality of play I have found. Nerlens’ going down did impact the offense on the margin (1.106 to 1.088) but his loss was devastating to the team defensively. I think most observers have commented on his importance to that team defensively, but here is the measure of that importance. This of the defensive efficiency from game 22 to game 33 that is needed to raise the average from 0.890 to 0.991.
These two teams are weaker than the 2011 team, 2010 team, and the 2012 championship team of course.
This graph shows the Pomeroy Ranking of three UK teams after each game in the season for 2011, 2013 and 2014. Again, the similarities between 2013 and 2014 through this point of the season are so similar, and both are weaker than the 2011 team through this point, and of course the way the 2011 team finished their season. Fans were up in arms last year over the team, before Nerlens went down. The same fans want to somehow argue to protect this team from criticism. I believe the difference is found in the offensive side of things because fans can see the better offense, but they can’t discern the quality of defensive play nearly as easily.
One last point about the graph for all years. Pomeroy, and others, start a season with guesses. So the first 5 to 10 games of this graph are influenced by those pre-season guesses, but after about 8 games, in my experience, these graphs reflect the current team’s quality of play, free from the influence of the pre-season guesses. Since game 8, this team has moved from a #6 ranking to a #14 ranking. That shows a decline in the quality of play, not an improvement.
By RICHARD CHEEKS
When your team consists of inexperience players, the number one objective from the start must be to teach, and all great teachers develop a syllabus with a sequence of lesson plans as a road map to follow. For each session in the season, the teacher establishes learning objectives, and I have no doubt that Coach Calipari is approaching the 2013-14 basketball season in precisely this manner. The next scheduled session on Coach Calipari’s 2013-14 Syllabus is Lesson Plan 6, Cleveland State.
The first five sessions revealed Coach Calipari’s plan for the season: Start by learning to crawl, then walk, and finally show you can run with the big dogs. With the exception of the Champions’ Classic excursion to Chicago to face #1 Michigan State in the third session of the year, the tests provided by the opponents have been the easiest that this team will see all season, albeit progressively more difficult from start to present. These young Cats have passed these early tests, demonstrating that they started this class already able to crawl, have developed the ability to walk, and have showed signs of their ability to run.
Yes, Michigan State was something of a curveball for a group still trying to understand how to run because they were not quite ready to run with the big dogs that early. But, Big Blue Fans have little doubt that in due course this group of Cats will be able to outrun the Big Dogs, and if given another chance to take on the Spartans, will show them a new speed that will give the Spartans the “deer in the headlights” effect that seems to hit the young Cats in Chicago.
There are two more games to work on those emerging running skills. Cleveland State is up next in game 6. As it should be, Cleveland State is the next most difficult non-conference opponent in line. Eastern Michigan is waiting in the wings, for game 7, as the next opponent moving up the difficulty scale. The Adjusted NGE of each of these opponents tells the major part of this early season story:
Robert Morris, -0.027
Cleveland State, 0.004
Eastern Michigan, 0.013
Thereafter, Coach Calipari has lined up a series of December opponents to teach this team to run full speed with the Biggest Dogs that the NCAA has to offer in 2013-14. Providence, Baylor, Boise State, North Carolina, Belmont, and Louisville in that order have an average Adjusted NGE of 0.196 ppp, with a low of 0.121 ppp belonging to Baylor, and a high of 0.310 ppp belonging to Louisville. With each new test in this December portion of the class, the opponent’s adjusted NGE goes up a notch. By the end of December, we will know how well this group can run with the Big Dogs. The combined won-loss record of the remaining 8 teams on the non-conference schedule is 31-4. Cleveland State has 2 of the 4 losses, and 1 loss (taken by UNC from Belmont) was delivered by one future opponent to another.
As noted previously, these early games are not about the opponent that shows up, which for Monday night, will be Cleveland State. Cleveland State has also played five games, and has a 3-2 record. They have played at an average pace of 74 to 75 possessions, which this UK team will like very much, scoring 89.6 ppg (1.236 ppp) while giving up 64.6 ppg (0.862 ppp) against an early schedule strength of 0.5404 (#165). Saturday, Cleveland State defeated Robert Morris by 13, and on November 15, CSU defeated UT Arlington by 10 on the road. CSU’s two losses came at the hands of San Franscisco by 9 on the road, and future UK opponent Eastern Michigan by 12, also on the road. The Vikings claim a 4 point home win over #82 Iona in their season opener.
Through their first four games, the Cats also bring a 4-1 record into Tuesday’s encountered with themselves when Cleveland State makes an appearance in Rupp Arena. The Cats’ early season schedule strength is 0.3952 (#251). A side-by-side statistical comparison shows:
Based on these team profiles, the NGE analysis projects a Kentucky win by 31 points, 93-62. Pomeroy has this game with a 21 point margin, 91-70.
By RICHARD CHEEKS
Prior to each football season, I project the entire season’s results based solely upon Kentucky’s and each of Kentucky’s upcoming opponents’ body of work during the prior season, in this case 2012. Beginning with the 2013 Pre-Season Forecast, I have adopted a new methodology to define the starting point for each team. Rather than taking the previous season ending statistics as the starting point, I have established the program trends for Kentucky and each of its opponents, and projected 2013 Sagarin Rankings based on this trend.
As the new season  unfolds for each team, I will update and modify the season projections based upon the results that are completed and a weighting between the per game averages for the prior and current season, with complete reliance upon the current season statistics after a team has completed its 4 th game of the year. I base this transformative analysis upon observations that teams tend to reveal their current identity by the time it has played four games in a season and that most teams do not deviate a significant amount from their prior season level of performance moving forward.
Part I is a look back, a review of Kentucky’s 2012 performance in several key performance measures including Scoring; Scoring Defense; Scoring Margin; Yards-Gained, Allowed, and Margin; Possessions; and Schedule Strength. Part II is a look ahead at the upcoming 2013 football season, again focusing on the same array of performance measures. Part II projects the entire season based on 2012 season ending performance levels and identifies performance goals for this team for Kentucky’s season to conclude in harmony with results that most Big Blue Fans hope happen.
The following analysis is the pre-season examination of Kentucky’s 2013 schedule based solely upon the 2012 performance levels for Kentucky and each of its 2013 regular season opponents. Eight of Kentucky’s twelve 2013 Opponents were 2012 Bowl teams, and Alabama is the defending National Chmapion. The non-bowl opponents in 2012 are Miami (Ohio), Alabama State, Missouri, and Tennessee.
COMPARISON OF 2012 PERFORMANCE MEASURES AGAINST 2013 OPPONENTS:
A review of performance standards for SEC teams over recent years reveals that teams that rise to the top of the SEC score well. The top-flight SEC offenses average over 35 points per game. Unlike the 2010 Cats who averaged over 31 points per game, the 2012 Cats averaged UNDER 18 points per game. Every 2013 Kentucky opponent averaged more points per game than the Cats last season. In fact, three 2013 opponents (Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee) averaged over 35 ppg, and four more 2013 opponents (South Carolina, Alabama State, Vanderbilt, AND Louisville) averaged between 30 and 35 points per game. The average offensive production of all 2013 Opponents is nearly 31 ppg (30.9 ppg).
While the 2012 UK offense was the least potent in the SEC, its defense also remained too porous to allow the Cats to be competitive despite it anemic offense, allowing 31 points per game on the year. A review of performance standards for SEC teams over recent years reveals that teams that rise to the top of the SEC also defend well, and top-flight SEC defenses allow fewer than 22 points per game. Last season, the Cats allowed its opponents to score an average of 31.0 points per game, up from its pathetic 28 points per game allowed in 2010 and 2011..
Among this season’s opponents, two of them allowed their opponents to score more points per game than the Cats (Miami of Ohio, 34.9 points per game and Tennessee, 35.7 points per game), and ten 2013 opponents had stingier defenses than UK. Among the 2013 opponents that had stingier defenses than the Cats, six of them allowed fewer than 22 points per game (Alabama, 10.9 ppg, Florida, 14.5 ppg, South Carolina, 18.2 ppg, Vanderbilt, 18.7 ppg, Georgia, 19.6 ppg, and Alabama State, 20.8 ppg,). Louisville and Mississippi State were just over the 22.0 points per game threshold at 23.8 ppg and 23.3 ppg, respectively.
Overall, the Cats posted an average margin against all 2012 opponents of -13.1 points per game, down from 2011′s -8.8 points per game. None of the Cats’ 2013 opponents had lower average margins. Two 2013 opponents ended 2011 with a negative scoring margin (Miami of Ohio, -11.6 points per game, and Missouri, -2.7 points per game). The teams with positive margins are Tennessee [+0.5 ppg], Western Kentucky [+2.7 ppg], Mississippi State [+6.2 ppg], Louisville [+7.4 points per game], Alabama State [+11.2 ppg], Vanderbilt [+11.3 ppg], Florida [+12.0 ppg], South Carolina [+13.3], Georgia [+18.1 ppg], and Alabama [+27.8 ppg]. Of these, the margins posted by South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama were top tier SEC levels.
Yards Gained and Allowed
Largely, football teams that score more also gain more yards, and teams that allow fewer points are teams that allow fewer yards. The Cats averaged 315.0 yards per game and allowed 391.0 yards per game in 2012. With respect to yardage gained, all of UK’s 2013 opponents averaged more yards per game than the 2012 Cats, and four 2013 opponents averaged over 400 yards per game in 2012. Only two 2013 opponents allowed more yards per game than the Cats’ 391.0 yards per game, Miami of Ohio, 467.7 yards per game and Tennessee, 471.4 yards per game. Two 2013 opponents allowed less than 300 yards per game during 2012, Florida [287.5 yards per game], and Alabama [250.0 yards per game]. One of the 2013 opponents had a lower per game Net Yardage than the Cats’ -76.0 yards per game average in 2012, Miami of Ohio (-82.4 yards per game), and only two others had negative Net Yardage, Missouri [-34.3 yards per game], Mississippi State [-5.5 yards per game] and Kent State [-71,7 yards per game].
Another component of scoring is the number of possessions that a team can manage to get on average in a game. With respect to possessions, Kentucky averaged 11.4 possessions per game in 2012, down about 1 1/2 possession per game from 2011. The highest number of possessions was 13.7 [Tennessee] and the lowest was 11.1 [Louisville], and the average was 12.2 possessions per game. Nine of the twelve 2013 opponents averaged more possessions per game than the Cats.
The final statistical comparison is schedule strength. For this comparison, I have adopted the Sagarin rating schedule strength. In 2012, the Average Sagarin Schedule Strength was 61.67, and the Cats’ 2012 Schedule strength was 76.90, up from the 72.18 Schedule Strength in 2011. All twelve Cats’ 2013 opponents played a schedule that was tougher than the NCAA D1 average. Only one 2013 opponent played a more difficult schedule in 2012 than the Cats, Flordia (78.38).
The following Table presents the comparison of 2013 opponents’ 2012 statistical results.
The following Table provides further detail for UK and each 2013 opponent regarding how each team utilized its available possessions during the 2012 season.
PROJECTIONS FOR 2013 SEASON:
I use three different methods to project the 2013 season results: Sagarin (Using Trend Projection Method), Direct Statistical Comparison, and my NGE method. For Sagarin, the predicted margin is based on the algebraic difference between the teams’ respective rankings with a home field adjustment provided by Sagarin applied, and the score is based upon the average total points scored and allowed by both teams, with the Sagarin Margin applied. The direct statistical approach and the NGE methods are methods I have developed. In addition, I also track the effectiveness during the season of the Vegas line, which should be self-explanatory, and I project results using a Comparative Yardage procedure. However, I cannot apply the Vegas and Comparative Yardage methods at this time for pre-season projections because the data required for them does not become available until the season play begins.
During the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 seasons, the standard deviation for the 38 UK games between predicted and actual margin by these methods were:
- NGE Method: 16 1/2pts
- Sagarin: 14 pts
- Vegas Lines: 13 1/2 pts
- Statistical Analysis: 14 pts
In 2012, I tracked the upset rates for all NCAA D1 football games through the bowl season. There were 666 games played. Of those, 153 games had a Vegas line between 0 and 4 points [Average 2 points], 136 games had a Vegas line between 4 and 8 points [Average 6 points], and so forth as shown in the Table below. The upset rates, sorted and computed based upon the Vegas lines are also provided. The adjacent graph provides the probability of winning based on the Vegas Line. The red curve is the theoretical relationship based on standard statistical analyses using a normal distribution, and the Blue Triangles are the results from the 2011 Season. For the season, considering all games, the upset rate was 26.4%.
Overview of 2013 Opponents/Schedule:
The 2013 Season includes seven games at Commonwealth, and four games on the road, and one game at a neutral location.. In my opinion, there are two clear wins [Miami of Ohio, and Alabama State] and sever clear losses [Florida, @ South Carolina, Alabama, @ Mississippi State, @ Vanderbilt, and @ Georgia] on the 2013 schedule. The outcomes of the remaining three games will largely determine the success of the 2013 season for the Cats: Western Kentucky @ Nashville, Louisville, and Missouri.
Projected Season Records
For the Cats to return to bowl eligibility in 2013, they will need to hold serve on the two likely wins, win all three of the competitive games, and pick off one of the 7 opponents that will enter the season favored by more than 2 touchdowns to beat the Cats. The projected outcome by the three predictive methods indicate that the Cats will only be favored to win 3 games on their schedule, and finish 3-9, 0-8. Last season’s analysis predicted a 4-8 (Sagarin Methods) and 3-9 ( Statistical Comparison and Adjusted NGE), and the Cats dropped one game (Western Kentucky) that the pre-season analysis placed in the prospective W column by all three methods. In 2010, these methods projected a 6-6, 2-6 in the SEC, which was the outcome for 2010. Will 2013 be the season in which the Cats out perform these pre-season projections?
Projected Scoring and Margins
The pre-season scoring projections suggest a marginal improvement from the 2012 scoring and margin, with the Cats averaging about 21 1/2 points per game and allowing about 30 1/2 points per game, e.g. average margin -9 points per game. The NGE Method projects average scoring of 20.9 to 26.3, with an average margin of -5.4 points per game. As a reminder, all of these projections are based solely upon the 2012 results, and these projections will not become meaningful for 2013 until UK and its opponents have played at least 4 games of their respective 2013 schedules.
GOALS FOR 2013:
The primary goal for 2013 for the Kentucky Football team should be to win at least four games to stop the recent programmatic slide, and begin the climb back to competitiveness and bowl eligibility. Last year, the program continued its slide under Coach Joker Phillips, and he is now the “former” coach. The new coach, Mark Stoops, has generated a level of excitement about the future of this program that I have not seen from a coach who has not put a single team on the field of play against a real opponent. Recruiting success for the incoming 2013 freshman class was impressive in the short time he had to work the recruiting trail after his hire on November 27, 2012, but his early commitments for the 2014 class (next year’s incoming) has elevated this program into a position that is generating comments on a national basis for the first time in my memory. One recruiting services rated the UK commitments as the best in the nation.
The excitement is real. The question that remains is whether this unprecedented excitement has a basis. To be fair to Coach Stoops, the answer to this question really requires more than 1 season, or even 2 seasons to answer. Patience now is essential, but given a fan base that has been starved for football success, patience may not be a huge commodity in the Blue Grass. For this reason, to maintain this excitement, Coach Stoops’ first season at the helm needs to get the 5 wins that are in play to keep the cauldron of excitement boiling. Six wins in 2013 would send this fan base into orbit, and a bowl win on top of that would make Mark Stoops eligible for high political office in the Commonwealth.
In 2013, the Cats need to increase their average per game scoring from the 21 1/2 points per game currently projected to at least 26 points per game. In 2013, the Cats need to improve their average defense against scoring from the currently projected 30 1/2 points per game allowed to no more than 25 points per game.
In 2013, the Cats need to increase the offensive production from the anemic 315 yards per game it generated in 2012 to at least 390 yards per game in 2013. In 2013, the Cats need to decrease their average defensive output from 391.0 yards per game in 2012 to no more than 360 yards per game in 2013.
When a teammate falls, his brothers rally around him, each doing a little more, to show support of their fallen brother in the interest of the team. The emotional boost that sustains that greater effort cannot be sustained for the long term. However, as the extra energy provided by the initial response to the lost teammate subsides, the coaches and the remaining players adjust their game tactics to account for the reduced resources. Usually, the team’s overall performance parameters (efficiency) are not substantially changed by the absence of the fallen comrade. This process plays out every season, and in nearly all instances, the ability of the team to be more than anyone ever imagined possible screams to the world the significance of the team. These events also teach the team itself that working together, they can be more than the sum of their individual parts, e.g. synergism.
That is clearly not going to the case with this UK group. Saturday, in Knoxville, this group was like a rudderless ship in a storm. If the wind blew from the west, the group scattered as it moved to the east. If the winds swirls, the group gets spinning sickness and can’t maintain balance. If Tennessee pushed to the baseline, the UK players moved into the cheerleaders. And so it went for the entire game, and make no mistake, the Tennessee Volunteers, their coaches, and their fans reveled in their ability to have their own way for the entire game against the mighty Wildcats. Moreover, they did just that, without any mercy, for 40 full minutes. Paybacks are HECK!
This event, not really a game in the classic sense, exposed the flaws of this group of players. They have tried to go through the motions of being a team, but they have never really grasped the meaning of the word. A collection of individuals for whom the sum of the parts cannot ever be multiplied by the synergism of a team. So, let it be written about Kentucky basketball during the 2012-13 season. This trait was exposed in game 1, and despite Coach Calipari’s personal commitment to teaching them how to be a team, this group simply never understood the importance, the essential nature, of the message.
This group has 6 games remaining, 4 at Rupp and 2 on the road. The “numbers” for this season, based on the pre-Nerlens Noel injury, are so substantial, that they cannot possibly account for the complete dissolution of this group upon his injury, and these analyses in all likelihood will overstate the group’s Noel-less ability, just as it did on Saturday for the Tennessee game. Nevertheless, I will remain true to my methods (and my madness) for these conclusion of this season.
Vanderbilt enters this game with a 10-14 record, 4-8 in the SEC. These teams opened the SEC season in Nashville on January 10, and the Cats were fortunate to escape with a 2 point win despite this being one of the weakest Vanderbilt teams in memory. Since that game, Vanderbilt has 4 wins and has lost 7. Three of their 4 wins came at home, and the Commodores did manage a rare road win at South Carolina by 7. The Commodores have lost on the road to Arkansas by 23, to Missouri by 22, to Tennessee by only 1, and to LSU by only 1. The Vanderbilt trend line of road performance would have to be regarded as rising. The Commodores come into Rupp following a sequence of games that saw them at home for 4 of the last 5 games. Vanderbilt’s schedule has been more than respectable, 64th most difficult in D1 basketball (0.6224 per Pomeroy).
At 4-8 with 6 games remaining, the Commodores appear to have little to play for beyond their pride, and while the stakes for this Kentucky group remain very high (NCAA at large bid hanging in the balance), one must wonder if the Commodores won’t enter Rupp Wednesday night thinking they have more to play for than these Cats. If that is true, they the Cats may as well mail it in for the remaining 6 games.
VANDERBILT has averaged about 63 possessions per game, producing 59.1 ppg (0.94 ppp) and allowing 60.3 ppg (0.96 ppp). VANDERBILT has turned the ball over on 21.3% of its possessions while forcing turnovers on 19.8% of opponent possessions. On the Boards, VANDERBILT has secured an offensive rebounding rate of 27.9% about 5% below the 33% NCAA average, and a defensive rebounding rate of 69.5%, about 3% above the NCAA average.
In contrast, the Cats have averaged about 69 possessions per game, producing 74.4 ppg (1.07 ppp) and allowing 63.8 ppg (0.93 ppp) against a schedule strength of 0…6346 (59th). The Cats have committed turnovers on 19.4% of its possessions and forced turnovers on 18.4% of opponent possessions. On the Boards, the Cats’ rebounding rates have been 34.7% and 68.6% on the offensive and defensive ends.
Based on this distribution, the analysis tips in favor of Kentucky by 17 points, 73-56 in a game played at a pace of 66 possessions for the Cats and 66 possessions for VANDERBILT. Pomeroy figures the Game in Kentucky’s favor by 13 points, 68-55 at a pace of 63 possessions. The likely margin range for this matchup is Kentucky by 8 to Kentucky by 26 points.