Let us not forget the tenet that all conference road wins are big. Our train wreck at Baylor should help us to keep this in perspective. Coming away with our 18th consecutive win in the Little Apple is significant not only that it keeps an amazing streak alive but for the game itself. It was certainly not the best game the Jayhawks have played this year. It is not even the best road effort this year. What it is, though, is a conference victory on the road. After three straight road losses we have now built a little momentum with two victories to close our road season.

The first half was difficult for Jayhawk fans to watch. I was actually glad when I saw Jeff Carey and the walk-ons (sounds like a good skit for Late Night next year) check in for our inept starters. I watched in amazement as Drew shot a face to the basket dribble post up with 20 seconds on the shot clock. Or Kirk Hinrich earn two offensive charging fouls in about a minute. None of the starters looked like they had awoken from their pre-game nap. I was beginning to wander if the real Jayhawks had been kidnapped and replaced with remote control automatons controlled by the bad guys. But never fear, we have the walk-ons. It was pretty telling when Carey and the walk-ons came in an went on a 5 point run while shutting down the Mildcats on three straight possessions. Something tells me this wasn't lost on Roy. When they finally checked back in it looked like Roy had their attention and they had finally awakened from their slumber. That is until Jeff Boschee threw up a shot at the end of the half with more than 10 seconds on the shot clock when he could have held for the last shot. Shades of Oklahoma!! Of course the Mildcats made us pay with another last second Hail-Mary to close half. I'm glad Roy isn't allowed to carry a gun on the sideline. Otherwise some of our players may be dead.

So is there any story in the numbers for the game to give us some insight? Let's take a look.

If you look at the offensive data it appears we had a good game and offensively we did. We shot 51.0% from the field, 50% (6 of 12) from the three point line, and 78% from the free throw line. Overall our SE (shooting efficiency) was 56.2% which is our third best of the year, best in conference play and best since the DePaul game. Our PPP was 0.987 which is very good by any measure and our 4th best in conference play. Our last two games have been 2 of our best PPP all year and they were both road games. Even though they were not exactly Duke and UNC they were conference foes in hostile environments so we should be happy with the performance of our offense of late. Further evidence of our offense clicking on 8 cylinders are the A/TO and the A/FGM ratios. The A/TO ratio was 1.20 which is good but not great but our A/FGM was 0.72 which is above our conference average of 0.62. So everything was rosy, right? Well not exactly. This was one of our worst rebounding efforts of the year. Even though we split the rebounds with KSU 50/50 we should have dominated. Not only do we have a much bigger front court but they were in foul trouble most of the game. We garnered 28.6% of the rebounds on our offensive glass while they grabbed 35.6% of their offensive rebounds. There is no excuse for that. We were just a little too complacent on the boards. Other defensive measures were also poor. We had our second worst steal performance of the year. We managed to swipe the ball only 3.4% of their possessions. That is less than half of our season average of 7.4% and was our second worst of the season. Also we blocked only 5 shots or 7.5% of their attempts compared to a season average of 8.4%. The biggest downside is the NEP. We had a team NEP of 78.8 which is the lowest NEP in a victory we have had in conference play and second worst for the entire season. Only against Ohio St. did we have a lower NEP and win. Most of this was from the defense and rebounding.

JAYHAWK DATA

Team	NEP	A/TO	A/FG	FG%	2FG%	3FG%	FT%	SE	Poss	PPP	%LOB	Blk/ OFGA	Stl/ Oposs	%OR	%DR
UCLA	76.7	1.33	0.57	58.3%	43.8%	68.8%	56.3%	95	1.042	15.8%	1.6%	6.6%	47.1%	69.4%	58.6%
St. Johns	95.3	1.00	0.90	64.3%	22.2%	71.0%	57.7%	91	0.901	28.6%	4.2%	8.9%	26.1%	68.6%	53.2%
NORTH DAKOTA	134.3	1.73	0.72	56.9%	50.0%	58.6%	56.4%	92	1.000	16.3%	6.6%	5.7%	38.2%	82.7%	65.1%
BOISE STATE	133.7	1.13	0.64	62.1%	66.7%	64.7%	63.1%	98	1.031	24.5%	16.7%	6.8%	55.6%	80.0%	70.1%
WASHBURN	146.7	2.00	0.78	56.3%	60.0%	51.4%	56.3%	94	1.053	14.9%	6.0%	11.7%	33.3%	80.0%	58.2%
MID. TENNESSEE ST.	121.2	1.35	0.66	51.9%	47.1%	70.0%	52.6%	97	0.948	17.5%	10.5%	11.8%	50.0%	78.9%	64.5%
ILLINOIS ST.	109.1	1.43	0.69	53.2%	33.3%	58.1%	49.7%	88	0.909	15.9%	13.3%	10.3%	28.9%	75.0%	54.2%
Wake Forest	25.1	0.55	0.58	48.5%	17.6%	52.2%	37.9%	81	0.654	24.7%	11.5%	7.0%	18.9%	59.4%	37.7%
DePaul	93.6	1.14	0.64	53.3%	25.0%	82.8%	57.3%	77	0.974	18.2%	9.1%	11.2%	32.0%	67.5%	50.7%
TULSA	103.3	1.13	0.55	52.0%	50.0%	82.6%	55.8%	88	1.045	18.2%	6.6%	5.8%	50.0%	68.4%	58.9%
Ohio State	74.5	0.82	0.62	54.5%	38.5%	46.2%	49.3%	86	0.802	25.6%	7.8%	4.6%	35.5%	72.5%	56.3%
SW. Missouri St.	133.3	2.09	0.74	51.0%	33.3%	58.8%	47.0%	84	0.917	13.1%	11.3%	6.3%	41.0%	71.7%	57.6%
Texas Tech	94.7	1.57	0.59	56.4%	42.9%	77.8%	55.3%	91	1.033	15.4%	0.0%	5.7%	31.4%	81.6%	57.5%
Oklahoma	86.3	0.76	0.57	42.5%	46.2%	68.0%	47.9%	83	0.831	20.5%	7.2%	6.7%	27.3%	68.6%	52.4%
NEBRASKA	109.4	1.35	0.70	54.5%	30.0%	62.5%	51.2%	93	0.903	18.3%	16.4%	9.1%	48.7%	59.0%	53.8%
TEXAS A&M	119.9	1.50	0.67	56.6%	37.5%	75.9%	54.6%	97	1.031	16.5%	4.2%	6.9%	41.7%	63.0%	54.4%
Colorado	100.9	1.75	0.64	47.4%	37.5%	72.2%	47.2%	93	0.914	12.9%	8.5%	7.1%	36.4%	62.7%	50.5%
KANSAS STATE	113.1	1.77	0.68	51.0%	45.0%	55.6%	49.7%	94	0.979	13.8%	7.1%	13.5%	40.0%	64.9%	51.2%
Missouri	70.1	1.54	0.74	45.8%	33.3%	38.9%	41.5%	85	0.776	15.3%	5.3%	8.3%	36.4%	61.8%	47.4%
TEXAS	108.0	1.50	0.64	47.1%	40.0%	59.5%	48.5%	92	0.891	13.0%	12.5%	5.3%	48.8%	63.6%	57.3%
IOWA STATE	72.0	1.08	0.47	51.0%	45.5%	80.0%	52.7%	80	0.963	16.3%	11.7%	2.5%	35.5%	67.6%	52.9%
OKLAHOMA ST.	99.5	1.06	0.66	46.8%	58.3%	60.0%	51.3%	86	0.895	20.9%	8.9%	9.4%	34.3%	73.2%	55.3%
Baylor	56.3	0.80	0.40	55.3%	29.0%	72.7%	42.8%	89	0.865	16.9%	5.6%	6.0%	43.9%	63.3%	52.1%
Iowa State	56.9	0.64	0.47	59.5%	53.3%	37.5%	55.9%	77	0.922	28.6%	12.5%	6.3%	25.0%	65.6%	48.2%
COLORADO	100.4	1.57	0.63	58.2%	20.0%	72.0%	50.6%	95	0.958	14.7%	10.6%	8.8%	35.0%	73.2%	54.3%
Nebraska	93.1	1.22	0.73	67.6%	38.9%	57.9%	55.3%	78	1.000	23.1%	9.0%	6.9%	50.0%	56.3%	54.1%
Kansas State	78.9	1.20	0.72	51.4%	50.0%	77.8%	56.2%	78	0.987	19.2%	7.5%	3.4%	28.6%	64.3%	50.0%

OPPONENT DATA

Team	NEP	A/TO	A/FG	FG%	2FG%	3FG%	FT%	SE	Poss	PPP	%LOB	Blk/ OFGA	Stl/ Oposs	%OR	%DR
UCLA	65.0	1.36	0.61	48.6%	54.2%	71.9%	55.1%	91	1.077	15.4%	3.1%	8.4%	30.6%	52.9%	41.4%
St. Johns	55.1	1.00	0.67	45.5%	25.9%	48.1%	37.8%	101	0.733	17.8%	0.0%	13.2%	31.4%	73.9%	46.8%
NORTH DAKOTA	38.1	1.67	0.63	35.7%	26.5%	80.0%	31.9%	88	0.693	10.2%	6.3%	10.9%	17.3%	61.8%	34.9%
BOISE STATE	13.0	0.87	0.59	41.0%	28.6%	45.8%	37.0%	88	0.693	17.0%	1.5%	10.2%	20.0%	44.4%	29.9%
WASHBURN	19.1	0.78	0.70	35.6%	18.2%	66.7%	32.2%	94	0.596	19.1%	6.3%	5.3%	20.0%	66.7%	41.8%
M. TENN. ST.	36.6	0.68	0.59	42.4%	33.3%	77.8%	42.3%	85	0.776	22.4%	5.8%	10.3%	21.1%	50.0%	35.5%
ILLINOIS ST.	43.7	0.50	0.40	40.5%	16.7%	75.0%	37.7%	87	0.701	18.4%	1.7%	11.4%	25.0%	71.1%	45.8%
Wake Forest	118.0	1.21	0.57	53.5%	38.9%	73.9%	51.5%	86	0.977	16.3%	6.0%	13.6%	40.6%	81.1%	62.3%
DePaul	63.5	1.14	0.64	42.5%	30.8%	61.1%	39.2%	89	0.775	15.7%	6.1%	9.1%	32.5%	68.0%	49.3%
TULSA	50.5	1.06	0.75	38.2%	40.7%	66.7%	42.1%	86	0.802	19.8%	10.9%	12.5%	31.6%	50.0%	41.1%
Ohio State	57.6	0.69	0.65	35.5%	30.0%	66.7%	41.5%	87	0.782	18.4%	10.5%	9.3%	27.5%	64.5%	43.7%
SW. Missouri St.	33.0	0.71	0.56	32.7%	15.4%	55.6%	29.5%	80	0.538	17.5%	1.5%	7.1%	28.3%	59.0%	42.4%
Texas Tech	58.9	1.43	0.74	48.6%	37.5%	73.1%	47.7%	87	0.943	16.1%	1.4%	6.6%	18.4%	68.6%	42.5%
Oklahoma	59.9	0.67	0.45	28.6%	40.0%	69.2%	35.7%	90	0.678	16.7%	15.1%	9.6%	31.4%	72.7%	47.6%
NEBRASKA	43.3	0.61	0.61	45.9%	33.3%	50.0%	41.9%	88	0.705	26.1%	3.1%	9.7%	41.0%	51.3%	46.2%
TEXAS A&M	32.4	0.79	0.63	36.5%	25.0%	65.4%	36.8%	102	0.686	18.6%	2.9%	9.3%	37.0%	58.3%	45.6%
Colorado	70.3	1.20	0.72	36.0%	33.3%	72.0%	39.9%	98	0.765	15.3%	4.1%	9.7%	37.3%	63.6%	49.5%
KANSAS STATE	38.6	0.52	0.46	42.6%	44.4%	58.3%	45.5%	89	0.742	23.6%	4.3%	7.4%	35.1%	60.0%	48.8%
Missouri	80.4	0.63	0.40	44.7%	42.1%	73.9%	48.1%	84	0.893	19.0%	4.8%	8.2%	38.2%	63.6%	52.6%
TEXAS	46.9	0.80	0.35	33.3%	27.8%	68.2%	35.9%	94	0.702	10.6%	6.6%	8.7%	36.4%	51.2%	42.7%
IOWA STATE	65.4	1.11	0.36	39.5%	64.7%	57.1%	50.0%	79	1.000	11.4%	0.0%	8.8%	32.4%	64.5%	47.1%
OKLAHOMA ST.	50.1	0.61	0.52	44.7%	22.2%	68.2%	40.1%	85	0.718	21.2%	11.9%	9.3%	26.8%	65.7%	44.7%
Baylor	90.5	1.33	0.71	56.8%	41.2%	71.0%	54.5%	84	1.012	17.9%	2.9%	12.4%	36.7%	56.1%	47.9%
Iowa State	89.1	1.50	0.72	40.5%	52.6%	79.2%	51.0%	80	0.988	15.0%	3.8%	16.9%	34.4%	75.0%	51.8%
COLORADO	57.3	0.80	0.46	39.2%	40.0%	95.5%	46.7%	91	0.868	16.5%	1.4%	11.6%	26.8%	65.0%	45.7%
Nebraska	69.0	1.50	0.67	37.5%	44.4%	47.1%	41.6%	87	0.851	13.8%	0.0%	12.8%	43.8%	50.0%	45.9%
Kansas State	46.1	0.64	0.29	41.5%	14.3%	75.0%	38.7%	88	0.739	12.5%	2.0%	7.7%	35.7%	71.4%	50.0%

Player of the game is a tough call and I will go with Drew. Kirk actually had a higher NEP but played many more minutes. Drew had by far the highest n-NEP so he gets the nod. It was great to see Drew have a good game in his first game back. Here is a brief player by player analysis and highlights.

Kirk: He continues to rebound well for a point guard with 4 boards. He has stepped up his assists the last 2 games with 9 against KSU and 11 against Nebraska. His 9 assists came with only 2 TO's. He is still over 2.0 for A/TO at 2.18. He has been inching up on Jeff to take over the team lead in that category. Jeff is still ahead with a 2.33. Kirk shot 50% from the three point lane and continues to be on track to be the first Big 12 player to shoot better than 50% for the season. He is currently ranked 7th in the nation in A/Gm and 3-pt FG%. He is really showing his stuff this year.

Drew: Drew had the 16th best n-NEP performance for the team this season against KSU. Not bad for his first game back. He shot 6 for 10 from the field and pulled down 7 rebounds in Drew led the team with a SE of 65.4%.

Kenny: Kenny was pathetic from the free throw line but continues to show a nice stroke from the arc. Kenny hit 2 of 4 against KSU and is at 42.2% on the season. He pulled down 5 rebounds but clearly his biggest accomplishment was his 5 assists against only 1 TO. On the season Kenny has an A/TO ratio of 1.44. If you saw the game you saw that some of those passes were pretty much highlight reel material. Kenny's a more complete player now than at any time in his career.

Nick: Nick hit the offensive boards and led the team with 3. Other than that Nick had a pretty solid but average game for him.

If you had to name an MVP for the Jayhawks this year you would be hard pressed not to give the nod to Kirk Hinrich. All three sophomores have been outstanding but Kirk has led the way statistically and as the leader. Personally I cringe the most when he leaves the game. It seems they struggle more with him on the bench than any other player. That may be because there is the largest discrepancy in talent at the PG position. As you can see from the table below he leads the team with an NEP of 488. That is almost 20% more than Kenny who is in second. His n-NEP is slightly behind Kenny and Drew but he has played many more minutes. He has shot 50% from 2 point range, 52.7% from the arc, 84% from the free throw line and is second on the team to Nick in SE (shooting efficiency) at 56.2%. These are outstanding numbers by any measure. I will do a complete breakdown in my next segment comparing Kirk and the other leading contenders for 1st team all Big 12 but suffice it to say it would not be unjustified or surprising if Kirk got the call over Tinsley.

How are the Jayhawks likely to play in the NCAA tournament? Now that is a tough question and can be looked at from a number of viewpoints. I will show you one that bodes well for some strong play. That is unless we have to play a team in their gym. The bottom line of this analysis is that the Jayhawks play well at home, they play pretty well on neutral courts and they play downright pathetically on the road. The data below shows the data for all home, away and neutral games. For starters you can see that the average NEP is 50% higher at home than on the road. That is 50% higher for home games. That is truly amazing. Certainly you would expect to see a higher NEP at home but 50%. Look at the opponents NEP data. Their NEP almost doubles from 8.2 to 15.8. Wow!! Not only does our NEP drop by 1/3 but our opponents NEP almost double on the road. That says our offense falls off quite a bit but our defense pretty much collapses. Note that we even have a lower NEP than our opponents on the road. Our opponents have an NEP of 15.8 on the road compared to our 15.4. Look down at the points. We score about 15 fewer points per game on the road than at home (89.2 vs. 74.5) while our opponents score 9.2 points per game more (75.1 vs. 65.9). Our scoring margin shrinks from 23.3 PPG to -0.6 PPG. That's right we have actually been outscored on the road. We get 1.9 more TO's per game while our opponents get 1.5 fewer. That equates to a %LOB of 17.0% at home vs. 20.7% on the road for KU and 18.1% vs. 16.5% for our opponents. Our shooting % data shows an interesting stat. We shoot just about the same on the road and at home on 2 pointers (53.9% to 53.7%) and we actually shoot very slightly better on the road from the FT line (64.3% vs. 64.2%). Our 3 point shooting is another story. From the arc we shoot 44.3% at home versus 35.2% on the road. What is really crazy about this is we try almost 20% more 3 point shots on the road than at home (15.0/gm vs. 12.8/gm). Why? Could the fact that we get about 6 fewer free throw attempts on the road have anything to do with the fact we are jacking up more treys and not getting the ball inside where we are more effective? I think so! We clearly get taken out of our game plan on the road way more than at home.

Click here to continue.

Email Don