Two big UofL wins, with almost nothing in common
When facing a brutal stretch of non-conference games like UofL just did, teams in a transition year are usually looking to accomplish two things: get some key wins on an NCAA tournament resume, and establish a clear identity to rely on during the season. Louisville can clearly check the first box; they got a win over a Big Ten title contender in Michigan State, and a road win over a possible bubble team in Seton Hall. These are the types of wins the team lacked last year, when their non-conference schedule yielded zero road wins and zero wins over at-large NCAA teams. At first glance, you might think UofL is working towards establishing an identity as a tough-minded team who can grind against difficult opponents. When taking a more indepth look, however, it's difficult to point to anything that happens during a basketball game that was remotely consistent between the two wins.
Before getting into the stats, here are the one-page stats profiles for last week's games:
UofL vs Michigan State stats profile
UofL vs Seton Hall stats profile
UofL 2018-19 season stats profile
Similar results, but opposite approaches
In their win over Michigan State, UofL posted an adjusted plus/minus of +0.27 points per possession. Against Seton Hall, UofL put up +0.18. Those were the 2nd and 3rd best adjusted margins of the season, behind only the blowout of Southern (+0.41). Adjusted margin accounts for the quality of opposition, so barely beating Michigan State is better than a comfortable win over Nicholls State. Overall, UofL played a similar level in both games. Looking any deeper, however, you see the way they got there couldn't have been more different.
Against Michigan State, UofL was:
BETTER than their season average in points allowed per possession, free throw rate, turnover rate, and opponent turnover rate; they drew a ton of fouls from the Spartans, forced turnovers, and took care of the ball
WORSE than their season average in points per possession, effective FG%, opponent effective FG%, opponent free throw rate, and offensive and defensive rebounding; UofL was outshot, fouled a lot, and got pounded on the boards
Against Seton Hall, UofL was:
BETTER than their season average in points allowed per possession, opponent effective FG%, opponent free throw rate, and offensive and defensive rebounding; UofL shut down Seton Hall's shooting and free throws, and dominated the glass
WORSE than their season average in points per possession, effective FG%, free throw rate, turnover rate, and opponent turnover rate; the Cards struggled to shoot and draw free throws, and were much sloppier with the ball
UofL beat Michigan State by getting a ton of free throws, which are usually the most efficient source of offense. They beat Seton Hall by outshooting the Pirates from the field. The little advantages UofL had against Michigan State were gone against Seton Hall, and vice versa.
The differences go beyond the team stats; even individual players had vastly different impacts. Against Michigan State, UofL was +8 when Enoch and Nwora shared the court (21 possessions); the Cards were -4 in the other 69 possessions. But against Seton Hall, UofL was -15 in 26 possessions when Enoch and Nwora were in the game, and +20 in the other 46 possessions. Watching the film, you can see stark differences between the two games, as exemplified by the lineups that started each half.
Against Michigan State, UofL opened up each half running spread pick-and-roll offense featuring ballhandlers driving to the basket. This led to fouls drawn, or kick-out passes for three pointers. Against Seton Hall, UofL ran less pick-and-roll to open the game, and didn't get as much drive-and-kick action; instead, Enoch got some fruitless post-up touches. The differences were multiplied by the different sets the opposing offenses ran as well. Michigan State centered their offense on post-ups, and got very little besides drawing some free throws. Seton Hall ran a 4-out (and 5-out) offense with a lot of screens and motion, which led to driving and passing lanes opening up. The Enoch/Nwora frontcourt is much better suited to playing against bigger opponents who try to play through the post, as UofL can aggressively pester ballhandlers knowing that there is defensive help near the basket. When teams spread the floor, the aggressiveness can backfire and lead to open layups or defensive scrambles.
In the backcourt, the duo of Khwan Fore and VJ King were +9 in 19 possessions together against Seton Hall. But they were -1 in 19 possessions against Michigan State. In both games, King and Fore gave a strong effort on defense. In particular, they were both effective at handling screens (on-ball and off-ball). This kept the opponent from creating offense off of drives. The big difference in their performances was on offense. Against Michigan State, the offense lacked any dynamism off the dribble when King and Fore shared the court. Neither player tried to do anything of note off the dribble, and UofL didn't get many quality shots. UofL scored only 0.89 points per possession when King and Fore played together against the Spartans. Against Seton Hall, however, both King and Fore were much more aggressive. They each looked to create multiple times off the dribble, which helped open up the offense. UofL put up 1.11 points per possession when King and Fore shared the court against the Pirates. Both of these players can be strong perimeter defenders, but they have to keep the offense humming in order to really make a difference when they play.
On a final note, there's a very interesting positive takeaway for UofL fans from last week's wins (besides the wins themselves). UofL clearly played to their opponents' strengths and weaknesses in both games. Michigan State is excellent at rebounding, shooting, and defending opponent's shooting; UofL performed worse than their season average in all of these. Meanwhile, Michigan State is poor at forcing turnovers, committing turnovers, and giving up free throws; these were the exact areas where UofL outperformed their season averages. The same held true for Seton Hall, which is good at forcing turnovers and avoiding their own turnovers, but poor at rebounding and shooting. To me, this indicates that UofL is very flexible and adaptable. There is a risk that UofL will allow their opponents to dictate the style of games, but the Cardinals seem to be able to take advantage of a number of different weaknesses. It will be very interesting to see if this continues, and if UofL can continue to adapt to capitalize on whatever weaknesses present themselves. For fun, here are some notable weaknesses for Indiana and Lipscomb, their next two opponents with a pulse:
Indiana is an excellent shooting team, but commits a ton of turnovers and allows a lot of three point attempts
Lipscomb is an awful offensive rebounding team, and lets opponents shoot pretty well
Again, UofL will need to play different styles to take advantage, but they've shown the ability to do so. Let's see if it keeps up!
Thanks for reading my newsletter. If you have any questions, want to argue a point, or have some feedback, feel free to reach out via email at sean@hoopsinsight.com, or on Twitter @hoopsinsights. If you liked this, let me know as well, and tell your friends to subscribe at www.hoopsinsight.com.
You can forward this to others, but please ask them to subscribe as well so I can keep track of who's enjoying my insight and analysis