Calipari stating multiple times that "The platoon thing cost us in recruiting". Who did it cost us?

[bucsrule8872]

I think UK could be in a similar situation next year. Cal needs a few of these incoming freshmen to stick around for another year, and it would be huge to have Gabriel or SKJ for a junior year. Add those players to a star-studded recruiting class and Cal could have something special.

I'm going the route of Smooth and predicting that Baker will be a huge fan favorite and end up being more than a key player in the next couple of seasons. We're all dazzled by athletes like Diallo, but it's guys like Baker that hit the shots ah-lah Doron Lamb.

I just don't see us platooning again.

Cal will sign five or six recruits from the '18 class and will have five or six guys coming back. The best 8-9 play. The top 5-6 get the most minutes. That's a typical Cal rotation.

Example (just for arguments sake. I am not saying for sure we sign these guys or that these are the guys coming back):

We get Quickely, Reddish, Bol, King, and LeDee

We return Gabriel, Killeya-Jones, Wynyard, Baker, Gilgeous-Alexander, and Green.

We start Green, Quickley, Reddish, Gabriel, and Bol. King, Gilgeous-Alexander, and Killeya-Jones get big minutes off the bench. Baker and Wynyard fight for the remaining minutes.

That's how I see it.

 

[JonathanW]

The problem is that Ulis and Booker got continually abused on defense, and is why they did not play a lot against Wisconsin. Part of what made that team so special was the ability to switch everything, except when Ulis was on the floor. You need the twins to be able to do that. While I agree that Ulis and Booker wer better on the offensive end than the twins, there would have been a significant drop on the defensive end. Also, Cal has proven that he will trim his rotation to 6 guys if he has to. Willis and Hawkins likely don't get much more clock, regardless of whether the twins are on that team or not. And as we saw, when he quit platooning, Lee basically quit playing very much, which would be unaffected by the absence of the twins. Also, Booker had plenty of opportunities at the end of the season, he just went cold. Not sure increased playing time would have helped that, it was all mental.

I disagree with a lot of that. But you are right that we would not have been better off w/out the twins, if for no other reason than depth. That would have left us with only Ulis, Booker, & Hawkins who could handle the ball. 2 FR and a SOPH project player.

 

[catrecruit]

Briscoe, Skal, Charles Matthews not exactly typical Cal material....then he had to late June sign a reclassify Murray or we would've been hurtin' bad

 

[BoxterS]

Briscoe, Skal, Charles Matthews not exactly typical Cal material....then he had to late June sign a reclassify Murray or we would've been hurtin' bad

Agreed on those players not being typical "Cal guys". But, they would have made for great 2-4 year players.

 

[trenupe2k2]

i hope we do platoon again but he call it something else...5 in 5 out or whatever...this up coming team has too many valuable players to be sitting the bench, and we have the transfer talk come up. lets platoon coach!

 

[EclipsingYou]

Here's 3 articles that all point to Calipari never platooning again due to it hurting his recruiting. I'm not sure why you guys are doubting it had an affect.

If not for other coaches using the platoon system against UK in recruiting, I think Kentucky lands Thomas Bryant, Cheick Diallo, and Malik Newman. Possibly Brandon Ingram. I doubt we get Murray if those 3-4 had come. Just guessing.

It seems pretty clear to everyone that using a platoon cost Cal recruits. One article points out that Cal missed out on his entire top 5 in Ingram, Newman, Diallo, Zimmerman, and Jaylen Brown due to his platoon system. I doubt that, but Thomas Bryant made it clear that his platoon system scared him away from making a commitment to UK and decided on IU because of it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ystem-college-basketball-recruiting/26922809/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ya...ing-hurt-kentucky-s-recruiting-163937974.html

http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-bask...sketball-platoon-system-hurt-2015-recruiting/

 

[Aike]

Here's 3 articles that all point to Calipari never platooning again due to it hurting his recruiting. I'm not sure why you guys are doubting it had an affect.

If not for other coaches using the platoon system against UK in recruiting, I think Kentucky lands Thomas Bryant, Cheick Diallo, and Malik Newman. Possibly Brandon Ingram. I doubt we get Murray if those 3-4 had come. Just guessing.

It seems pretty clear to everyone that using a platoon cost Cal recruits. One article points out that Cal missed out on his entire top 5 in Ingram, Newman, Diallo, Zimmerman, and Jaylen Brown due to his platoon system. I doubt that, but Thomas Bryant made it clear that his platoon system scared him away from making a commitment to UK and decided on IU because of it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ystem-college-basketball-recruiting/26922809/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ya...ing-hurt-kentucky-s-recruiting-163937974.html

http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-bask...sketball-platoon-system-hurt-2015-recruiting/

Your OP used quotes and said Calipari stated it multiple times.

Find me one actual quote where Cal said that. Multiple would be even better.

To my knowledge, he never said any such thing publicly. If you have the quote, I would love to be proven wrong.

Considering you say there are multiple instances, and you used quotes, should be easy.

There is a big difference between speculating about Cal's reasons, and assigning quotes to him.

 

[morgousky]

You can't just look at statistics alone and come to a conclusion that platoons would have made a difference. Playing Notre dame, Wisconsin, and what would have been Duke is not the same as that seasons SEC run, or OOC play against a team like Kansas.

 

[BoxterS]

I think Cal relished in the platoon. I think he loved getting that many players drafted on that few of minutes.

I think Cal could pull it off again and I think he would actually.

Cal learned something from two players that tells me he could pitch and sell the platoon to incoming recruits. The two players were Skal and Diallo, and what he learned was that in the eyes of the NBA, less is more. As Lincoln once said, "better to be quiet and have everyone think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Well it's better to not play and have everyone think you are really good, than to play and expose yourself.

Skal was a VERY highly touted recruit and at one time projected as a top 5 pick. This was all based on just a handful of good AAU performances. Then he gets to UK, plays, has his weaknesses exposed and on full display and falls in the draft.

Diallo gets to UK, doesn't play, and finds himself projected in the first round in some mock drafts.

Point is: Cal can platoon and get recruits to buy in because of the aforementioned. Worried you won't get the minutes? Maybe you won't, and that's not a bad thing. Showcase some of your skill and NBA teams will salivate. Showcase too much and your weaknesses are on display. It's a weird world

 

[trenupe2k2]

i bet cal play 5 in 5 out this yr, i think transferring 5stars hurt more than some weak minded players scared of "platooning" thats seflish on their part.

 

[JPScott]

While the statistics likely indicate exactly what you are saying, it is hard to determine which actually came first. Did we stop dominating because we stopped platooning, or did we stop platooning because we stopped dominating? It's easy to keep platooning when you are dominating, but when the games start getting a little tight, are you going to platoon, or play your best players the majority of the minutes.

Actually it's not hard to determine which came first, because I tracked it during the season. Even after Poythress went down UK generally dominated in games where UK continued to use full platoons. These dominated less when UK use what I call modified platoons (where Cal had one play leak between the two squads), but it was apparent that the more Cal went away from platoons, the more UK reverted back to a typical Cal team. (Still good mind you, just not historically dominant.)

If there was any question that scrapping platoons was a bad idea, it should have been answered in the two games in early January where Cal went the furthest away from platoons: the Ole Miss game at home and the Texas A&M game away. Both of those games UK was in danger of losing, and in fact both of those went into overtime.

I don't think it's a coincidence that both of those games Cal essentially abandoned platooning very early on.

FYI, the reason I dropped tracking how UK substituted as the season progressed was because Cal's substitution patterns became increasingly erratic, and changed over the course of the game, it was harder and harder to characterize the substitution pattern (if there was on) the further into the season it went.

For example he may have still platooned to an extent, but as mentioned would have a player leak between teams, then have multiple players leak to the point that by the second half there was no discernable pattern.

Of he might do two or three full rotations of platoons and then abandon it thereafter. I didn't have the time or energy to break down the games into distinct time periods and look at the +/- for each period and compare them. It became too much work at that point for any benefit.

Plus the beauty of platoons is not that it's going to work each and every rotation. The beauty is that by sticking to it, the energy is kept at such a high level for such an exented time that eventually the opposition breaks down. By not sticking with platoon consistently, it becomes almost impossible to assess how effective it was. Despite this, both the visual observation and the overall statistics supported the conclusion that the more Cal subsituted individually, the less effectively the team played overall.

 

[JPScott]

You can't just look at statistics alone and come to a conclusion that platoons would have made a difference. Playing Notre dame, Wisconsin, and what would have been Duke is not the same as that seasons SEC run, or OOC play against a team like Kansas.

I agree that you can't look solely at statistics alone. But what I remember of the 2015 Wisconsin game was UK players had Wisconsin tired and on the ropes down the stretch of the game, but instead of putting the Badgers away, it was UK who was out of gas and couldn't seal the deal. Why was that?

By the end of the year the Cats vaunted depth was useless, looking dejected and completely demoralized on the end of the bench. Against Wisconsin, UK allowed the Badgers to dictate the tempo of the game, and never used their depth to try to pressure them or speed up the game.

Basically Cal took what was that team's greatest strength (their insane depth at every position) and basically gambled it away on the idea that the Twins would pull them through like they almost did the year before.

 

[JonathanW]

Briscoe, Skal, Charles Matthews not exactly typical Cal material....then he had to late June sign a reclassify Murray or we would've been hurtin' bad

Skal was rated by every service in the top 3. And Briscoe was rated I think in the top 10-15.

 

[EclipsingYou]

Are some of you seriously doubting the validity of Calipari stating that "Postponing hurt recruiting"? By running a Google search, every single article says that is the main reason he will never do it again. Never mind. Thought it was a really interesting question, but I see no need to reply when most won't agree with the 20+ articles mentioning platooning affecting recruiting. No reason for me to post on this thread anymore. Go Big Blue!

 

[JPScott]

If not for other coaches using the platoon system against UK in recruiting, I think Kentucky lands Thomas Bryant, Cheick Diallo, and Malik Newman. Possibly Brandon Ingram. I doubt we get Murray if those 3-4 had come. Just guessing.

It seems pretty clear to everyone that using a platoon cost Cal recruits. One article points out that Cal missed out on his entire top 5 in Ingram, Newman, Diallo, Zimmerman, and Jaylen Brown due to his platoon system.

Just curious but if instead of platooning, Calipari had stuck with 6 or 7 guys and left a bunch of talented players, including McDonald's All-Americans mind you, on the bench, that rival recruiters wouldn't have used THAT fact against Cal & UK as well?

I don't doubt that UK probably lost one or two players that recruiting season due to concerns over platooning, but I think it's overblown as well. Without platoons, there certainly would have been other reasons created to try to steer recruits away from UK. Plus as I think someone already mentioned, if UK had gotten Malik Newman etc. they likely would have missed out on Jamal Murray, who turned out to be a far more productive player.

Overall, I much prefer the Calipari who takes a look at his team and plays a style which maxmizes its strengths and effectiveness. If that means platooning, so be it. If that means playing a style which is different than he's done in the past, then that's fine as well. I'd much rather have that flexible and adaptive Cal, than the Cal who reverts back to one way of doing things for no other reason than because that's what he's done in the past or is most comfortable with.

That's why I think it's a mistake and an overreaction for him to swear off ever platooning in the future. (besides the fact that when UK was platooning they played at a level of effectiveness that no other Calipari team has ever come close to attaining.)

 

[weatherbird]

Actually it's not hard to determine which came first, because I tracked it during the season. Even after Poythress went down UK generally dominated in games where UK continued to use full platoons. These dominated less when UK use what I call modified platoons (where Cal had one play leak between the two squads), but it was apparent that the more Cal went away from platoons, the more UK reverted back to a typical Cal team. (Still good mind you, just not historically dominant.)

If there was any question that scrapping platoons was a bad idea, it should have been answered in the two games in early January where Cal went the furthest away from platoons: the Ole Miss game at home and the Texas A&M game away. Both of those games UK was in danger of losing, and in fact both of those went into overtime.

I don't think it's a coincidence that both of those games Cal essentially abandoned platooning very early on.

FYI, the reason I dropped tracking how UK substituted as the season progressed was because Cal's substitution patterns became increasingly erratic, and changed over the course of the game, it was harder and harder to characterize the substitution pattern (if there was on) the further into the season it went.

For example he may have still platooned to an extent, but as mentioned would have a player leak between teams, then have multiple players leak to the point that by the second half there was no discernable pattern.

Of he might do two or three full rotations of platoons and then abandon it thereafter. I didn't have the time or energy to break down the games into distinct time periods and look at the +/- for each period and compare them. It became too much work at that point for any benefit.

Plus the beauty of platoons is not that it's going to work each and every rotation. The beauty is that by sticking to it, the energy is kept at such a high level for such an exented time that eventually the opposition breaks down. By not sticking with platoon consistently, it becomes almost impossible to assess how effective it was. Despite this, both the visual observation and the overall statistics supported the conclusion that the more Cal subsituted individually, the less effectively the team played overall.

I understand what you are saying, but what I noticed that season is that for a good chunk of the season he used the platoon system at least at the beginning of the game, and according to what you are saying this is true. So the abandonment of the system started happening during the game, and then eventually total abandonment to where he didn't even try to use it. My assertion is that Cal may have decided later in the season that the platoon system wasn't working like it did earlier in the season, and thus decided against using it. And as such, the lack of dominance is what actually caused the abandonment of the system.

From a coaching perspective, when you see a train jump the tracks, you don't have to wait until the train crashes to know it's gonna wreck. Thus if there were things that Cal saw early in some of those games that indicated to him that his chances of winning those games would decrease by sticking to the platoon, he would likely scrap the system mid game, which is what we saw, before completely scrapping the system.

I'm not saying which came first, because as fans, our knowledge of the game while high compared to other fanbases, is still low compared to a HOF coach. The only way to actually prove the theory would be to have a single game played both ways and compare the outcome. Unfortunately, that does not exist. Even comparing two separate games against the same team in which one style was used one game, and the other used the next, there are still too many factors to point to the difference actually being the style. And that actually goes for the entire argument. Even if the substitution pattern was the only thing that changed over the course of the season, it still would not definitively prove the theory. Something happened that year during their Christmas break around the first of the year that changed that team. Maybe substitution pattern change is it, though I'm not ready to say it was. They still platooned after that, and it was obvious that their overall effectiveness went down.

We will likely never know the real reason it stopped. Was word from the recruiting world getting back to Cal? Did he start dreaming of that undefeated season and make hasty decisions trying to keep it in tack? Did he just get scared? Did there start to be some player issues with playing time? Did somebody's draft stock start falling and he tried to recover it? Or was it something else totally?

 

[Dablueman]

Well like I have said before it was used against us by other coaches. Since then 8 of the 10 guys on that roster are in the league. 2 in Kat And Booker on the verge of super stardome. So the argument against platoon has been squashed. All cal has to say to a big man is oh I'm sorry you have a problem with platooning I guess you dont want to be like Kat. And the same to wing players with booker. I look for him to try it some this year

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Man, I ****ing loved that team. Still pissed off we didn't get a fair shake against Wisconsin. All the mistakes aside in that game, we still win if it's correctly officiated. Don't believe me, go back and watch the game.

 

[JPScott]

I understand what you are saying, but what I noticed that season is that for a good chunk of the season he used the platoon system at least at the beginning of the game, and according to what you are saying this is true. So the abandonment of the system started happening during the game, and then eventually total abandonment to where he didn't even try to use it. My assertion is that Cal may have decided later in the season that the platoon system wasn't working like it did earlier in the season, and thus decided against using it. And as such, the lack of dominance is what actually caused the abandonment of the system.

From a coaching perspective, when you see a train jump the tracks, you don't have to wait until the train crashes to know it's gonna wreck. Thus if there were things that Cal saw early in some of those games that indicated to him that his chances of winning those games would decrease by sticking to the platoon, he would likely scrap the system mid game, which is what we saw, before completely scrapping the system.

I see what you're saying, and it sounds like we largely agree on the fact that as the season progressed Cal used the platoons less and less. First after Alex's injury he started using what I'd call modified platoons (for another ~10 games), and as the season went on the duration of using platoons (whether straight or modified) became less and less a part of the total game.

Seems like we view this as a chicken and egg question. But as I've said already, I was watching Cal's substitution pattern real time during the season and until it became more trouble than it was worth was charting the substitution pattern of each game, and at least to me it was obvious that the more Cal went away from platoons, the less effectively the team played overall. [i.e. once Cal started substituting individual players, the team no longer looked completely coherent (especially defensively) and became more disjointed, which only prompted Cal to substitute more.] It was a vicious cycle, and frankly infuriating to watch.

Now part of the issue with assessing how effective platoons are is not based on an individual cycle. (i.e. you can look at one rotation and expect that they will have a positive +/- each time.) Where the platoons really proved their worth was about midway in the second half of the game when after constant pressure on the opposing team, UK would go on a run and the other team simply gave up out of frustration and exhaustion.

But the shorter Cal actually used platoons during the game, the less valid was it to assess how they actually worked over the course of the entire game. Regardless, when you step back and look at the overall stats, it was clear that playing platoons only was far dominant to some combination of platoons + individual substitution.

I do think that it's to be expected that as the season progressed, that opponents would adopt and be better prepared to face UK. For example, they certainly should have learned from some of the early blowouts not to try to run with UK, but instead to try to slow the pace down.

Unfortunately it seems to me that instead of really investing in the platoon system and improving it during the course of the season, that Calipari abandoned it too soon.

As an example, early in the season I kind of envisioned that the two UK squads would be developed in a way that they played completely diffrent styles. The "Blue" team with say the Harrisons, KAT etc. would be more bruising, pound it out, like a boxer hitting an opponent repeatedly with body blows.

Then the "White" team with Ulis, Booker etc. would be more run and gun, pressing and shooting threes, trying to force the pace, like a boxer coming out dancing around the ring and trying to land a flurry of jabs.

You could actually have had each team adopted by different assistants (i.e. one under Robic, one under Kenny Payne) and have them develop some of their own sets and plays.

To me it would be hard enough for an opponent to prepare for one of those squads, let alone two with completely different styles and game pace. (especially in the NCAA tournament when there isn't a lot of free time to prepare for future opponents). But sadly, this never seemed to be developed to the extent I would have liked to see.

I'm not saying which came first, because as fans, our knowledge of the game while high compared to other fanbases, is still low compared to a HOF coach. The only way to actually prove the theory would be to have a single game played both ways and compare the outcome. Unfortunately, that does not exist. Even comparing two separate games against the same team in which one style was used one game, and the other used the next, there are still too many factors to point to the difference actually being the style. And that actually goes for the entire argument. Even if the substitution pattern was the only thing that changed over the course of the season, it still would not definitively prove the theory. Something happened that year during their Christmas break around the first of the year that changed that team. Maybe substitution pattern change is it, though I'm not ready to say it was. They still platooned after that, and it was obvious that their overall effectiveness went down.

We will likely never know the real reason it stopped. Was word from the recruiting world getting back to Cal? Did he start dreaming of that undefeated season and make hasty decisions trying to keep it in tack? Did he just get scared? Did there start to be some player issues with playing time? Did somebody's draft stock start falling and he tried to recover it? Or was it something else totally?

I think certainly some feedback from recruits caused some sort of crises in confidence by Cal. And I firmly believe that was a mistake on his part.

Cal has been able to take facts like Anthony Davis and MKG took the 4th and 5th most shots on the 2012 team and still were drafted 1st and 2nd to great effect. I don't know why he wouldn't be able to take the fact that yes, some players sacrificed minutes during the 2014-15 season but it helped the overall team and it didn't hamper their pro prospects (including guys like Devin Booker and Trey Lyles who might otherwise have been buried on the bench), and turn that into a positive on the recruiting trail.

I think there was also some comments Cal made during the season about people on the bench not working hard enough to deserve to be on the floor. I'm not sure who exactly he was talking about, but if so that's on them.

One example is Derek Willis. I said at the time that Alex Poythress went down with injury that Derek Willis was probably the most important player on the 2014-15 team. The reason being that if he could step in and take Poythress' spot and maintain pure platoons, the whole team would benefit.

Instead, he wasn't mentally ready to do that. (After the most recent season he was interviewed and admitted that despite playing great in the Bahamas, he wasn't mentally ready to be a major contributor that year, which was disappointing to hear. He was a year too late.)

Dominque Hawkins filled in as a third guard in some games, and as I said the team still played really well in those post-Poythress injury games where full platoons were still maintained, but eventually that was the chink that led Cal down the road to start experimenting with the lineup, and the team never performed as well again (except in a few cases like WVU etc. where they were clearly motivated to dominate).

As you suggest, there may have been other reasons that we're not aware of which led Cal to change his strategy during the season.

But regardless of the reason, the fact was that it was obvious DURING the season that the more Cal went away from platoons, the worse the team played. A Hall of Fame caliber coach should have noticed that and corrected it IMO.

And BTW, another person I blame for not correcting that was Joel Justus. If you remember he was hired that season specifically to be the 'Advanced Analytics' guy. I'm not sure what he was doing but that's the type of thing he should have picked up on quickly.

 

[Fox2monk]

It's totally possible it did. I'm just speculating. But to me it seemed like he was very UK early and then when mom bought the platoon hate from other coaches, he stayed home at the safe landing spot that would promise minutes.

I also think that 2015 class as a whole was terrible talent wise and full of kids who were worried they'd be buried if they weren't one and done, which was where most of the negative recruiting came from.

Pretty much this as Murray was one of the only elite players that would have stacked up in his original class.

 

[coolioo1]

You all are crazy..the team dominated all year equally. Heck, many forget the closest this team almost lost were the two first games in SEC play!!! One at HOME. Then mid way through SEC play at UGA....so not sure there was a difference full platooning or not. The end of the season was disappointing due to one game, where the Harrison's didn't play great and most forgot that Booker was in a slump for the last 1/3 of season. He was red hot in the middle third. Booker also was a HUGE liability on defense at season end. Plus, why Platoon (take out KAT) by season end, he was unstoppable.

 

[Aike]

Are some of you seriously doubting the validity of Calipari stating that "Postponing hurt recruiting"? By running a Google search, every single article says that is the main reason he will never do it again. Never mind. Thought it was a really interesting question, but I see no need to reply when most won't agree with the 20+ articles mentioning platooning affecting recruiting. No reason for me to post on this thread anymore. Go Big Blue!

I have no qualms with a discussion about the platoon hurting recruiting.

My objection is to your claim that Calipari stated this multiple times. Considering you can't dig up even one quote, seems like it never happened.

So I think it would be super cool if you said something like, "It doesn't appear that Cal ever came right out and said this, but there's been a lot of conjecture that platooning hurt us in recruiting."

But I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. Because that would be wrong.

 

[morgousky]

Cal said he would not platoon again. Im not aware if he was pressed on why, but why is not in question. It was about recruiting.

 

[Aike]

Cal said he would not platoon again. Im not aware if he was pressed on why, but why is not in question. It was about recruiting.

The OP said Cal stated it multiple times then put it in quotes.

I mean, I know fake news is all the rage, but people used to try to be somewhat accurate when quoting someone else.

 

[UKUGA]

While I'm sure those recruits were negatively recruited due to the platoons, the thing that is often overlooked is that rival schools will negatively recruit no matter the situation.

If it's not the platoons it would have been something else.

The situation UK was in in 2014-15 was ideally set up to platoon, even after Alex Pothress got injured. It was a shame Cal went away from it towards the end of the season, as IMO doing so cost UK a title.

It would be an even bigger shame if Cal refuses to try it again in the future (assuming UK's fortunate enough to find themselves in a similar situation.)

You are the UK historian. When did Cal make these statements that we "have all heard" about the platoon hurting his recruiting?

 

[morgousky]

The OP said Cal stated it multiple times then put it in quotes.

I mean, I know fake news is all the rage, but people used to try to be somewhat accurate when quoting someone else.

I figured there would be something from Cal about it, but then again, what would Cal say? My recruiting was hurt by ??? Yea, I dont think that would happen now that I think about it.

Cal prefers a short rotation anyway. Stamina didnt seem to be a problem at any other time so I have a hard time believing thats an issue.

 

[Aike]

I figured there would be something from Cal about it, but then again, what would Cal say? My recruiting was hurt by ??? Yea, I dont think that would happen now that I think about it.

Cal prefers a short rotation anyway. Stamina didnt seem to be a problem at any other time so I have a hard time believing thats an issue.

It's a valid discussion, and reading between the lines is fine. Many articles were written at the time doing just that.

I'm just a stickler for calling a fact a fact and conjecture conjecture. It's one of the great things about message boards. You can put stuff in black and white use links to validate a point.

If the Cal quote is out there, fine. Someone dig it up. But if we can just make up quotes to prove our points, this board will get even crazier than it already is.

 

[JPScott]

You are the UK historian. When did Cal make these statements that we "have all heard" about the platoon hurting his recruiting?

I haven't taken the time to read any of the links provided. I figured the OP would either find a quote or admit there wasn't one.

My recollection is that Cal did say something after the season to the effect that he would never platoon again. As I've said many times I think saying you won't ever do something in the future is unnecessary & foolish, especially since by any objective measure the platoons were wildly successful, at least on the court.

But I don't remember him specifically attributing it to recruiting. Most people assumed it was because of recruiting, myself included (in fact it may have been said primarily as a signal to recruits who were concerned about it). But again I don't think Cal explicitly tied the two together.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

I haven't taken the time to read any of the links provided. I figured the OP would either find a quote or admit there wasn't one.

My recollection is that Cal did say something after the season to the effect that he would never platoon again. As I've said many times I think saying you won't ever do something in the future is unnecessary & foolish, especially since by any objective measure the platoons were wildly successful, at least on the court.

But I don't remember him specifically attributing it to recruiting. Most people assumed it was because of recruiting, myself included (in fact it may have been said primarily as a signal to recruits who were concerned about it). But again I don't think Cal explicitly tied the two together.

I know you've probably posted this before, but could you post thd the stats from the 2015 team with Poythress and then without. Also, how do those stats with Poythress stack up against past historically great teams?

 

[JPScott]

I know you've probably posted this before, but could you post thd the stats from the 2015 team with Poythress and then without. Also, how do those stats with Poythress stack up against past historically great teams?

Well the stats are available on my site,

Link to Game by Game Stats 2014-15

and if you want to delve into play-by-play level stats they are available in the boxscores on the UK Athletics site.

Link to UK Athletics Game by Game Boxscores

I have a couple of charts which illustrate how UK's efficiency dropped during the course of that season, but it might not be until this weekend that I have time to post them.

 

[420grover]

I'd like to hear that negative recruiting pitch. "You don't want to go to UK, you'll have to split minutes with someone else. Yeah, you might nearly go undefeated and be a part of history but wouldn't you rather play more to lose more?"

 

[npreston]

Newman is in the NBA if he chooses UK, instead he'll begin his 3rd college season.

He'll start for a top 10 team and is projected to be a 1st team all big 12 caliber player. Boy, he really missed the boat on playing in the NBA. Should've picked U.K.....

 

[JPScott]

Cal prefers a short rotation anyway. Stamina didnt seem to be a problem at any other time so I have a hard time believing thats an issue.

The problem with using a short rotation with the 2014-15 team is that by doing so, you basically walk away from your greatest strength.

What set UK apart that year was their insane depth. (and by using their depth smartly, it enabled them to exert tremendous energy and pressure defensively). It wasn't the quality of their players 1-6, it was the quality of their players 1-10+.

By reducing the rotation, UK intentionally made themselves susceptible to teams like Wisconsin, Duke and Arizona. Those teams' 1-6 rotation was arguably as good or nearly as good as UK's.

Insert that scenario into a do-or-die tournament setting and it's not surprising that UK's odds of winning the title were diminished dramatically.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

The problem with using a short rotation with the 2014-15 team is that by doing so, you basically walk away from your greatest strength.

What set UK apart that year was their insane depth. (and by using their depth smartly, it enabled them to exert tremendous energy and pressure defensively). It wasn't the quality of their players 1-6, it was the quality of their players 1-10+.

By reducing the rotation, UK intentionally made themselves susceptible to teams like Wisconsin, Duke and Arizona. Those teams' 1-6 rotation was arguably as good or nearly as good as UK's.

Insert that scenario into a do-or-die tournament setting and it's not surprising that UK's odds of winning the title were diminished dramatically.

Yep. Losing Poythress absolutely changed the whole dynamic of that team. I think we run the table with him.

 

[morgousky]

The problem with using a short rotation with the 2014-15 team is that by doing so, you basically walk away from your greatest strength.

What set UK apart that year was their insane depth. (and by using their depth smartly, it enabled them to exert tremendous energy and pressure defensively). It wasn't the quality of their players 1-6, it was the quality of their players 1-10+.

By reducing the rotation, UK intentionally made themselves susceptible to teams like Wisconsin, Duke and Arizona. Those teams' 1-6 rotation was arguably as good or nearly as good as UK's.

Insert that scenario into a do-or-die tournament setting and it's not surprising that UK's odds of winning the title were diminished dramatically.

I don't believe you can run a traditional 5 in 5 out platoon that deep into a tournament. A few of those guys can't be subbed out. We dominated not only because of depth, but also because the SEC was really weak in '15. While we did run through teams like Kansas and UCLA, it's a far stretch to relate anything inside of those games to late tournament atmospheres against Notre Dame, Wisonsin, and Duke. It's not popular, but had Kentucky been in the any other conference of the top 3, we would have had more losses, and people wouldn't be looking for some reason why we were beat. Beatable teams can lose, '15 seemed unbeatable. That's all this is imo.

So I guess my point is you could be correct, maybe with Poythress and running platoons we could have made it, or maybe Poythress doesn't show up, we have the wrong group on the floor, and platoons end up creating an issue anyway. I just don't believe it's cur and dry, and citing stats from teams that aren't who we were going to be playing is useless.

 

[weatherbird]

I see what you're saying, and it sounds like we largely agree on the fact that as the season progressed Cal used the platoons less and less. First after Alex's injury he started using what I'd call modified platoons (for another ~10 games), and as the season went on the duration of using platoons (whether straight or modified) became less and less a part of the total game.

Seems like we view this as a chicken and egg question. But as I've said already, I was watching Cal's substitution pattern real time during the season and until it became more trouble than it was worth was charting the substitution pattern of each game, and at least to me it was obvious that the more Cal went away from platoons, the less effectively the team played overall. [i.e. once Cal started substituting individual players, the team no longer looked completely coherent (especially defensively) and became more disjointed, which only prompted Cal to substitute more.] It was a vicious cycle, and frankly infuriating to watch.

Now part of the issue with assessing how effective platoons are is not based on an individual cycle. (i.e. you can look at one rotation and expect that they will have a positive +/- each time.) Where the platoons really proved their worth was about midway in the second half of the game when after constant pressure on the opposing team, UK would go on a run and the other team simply gave up out of frustration and exhaustion.

But the shorter Cal actually used platoons during the game, the less valid was it to assess how they actually worked over the course of the entire game. Regardless, when you step back and look at the overall stats, it was clear that playing platoons only was far dominant to some combination of platoons + individual substitution.

I do think that it's to be expected that as the season progressed, that opponents would adopt and be better prepared to face UK. For example, they certainly should have learned from some of the early blowouts not to try to run with UK, but instead to try to slow the pace down.

Unfortunately it seems to me that instead of really investing in the platoon system and improving it during the course of the season, that Calipari abandoned it too soon.

As an example, early in the season I kind of envisioned that the two UK squads would be developed in a way that they played completely diffrent styles. The "Blue" team with say the Harrisons, KAT etc. would be more bruising, pound it out, like a boxer hitting an opponent repeatedly with body blows.

Then the "White" team with Ulis, Booker etc. would be more run and gun, pressing and shooting threes, trying to force the pace, like a boxer coming out dancing around the ring and trying to land a flurry of jabs.

You could actually have had each team adopted by different assistants (i.e. one under Robic, one under Kenny Payne) and have them develop some of their own sets and plays.

To me it would be hard enough for an opponent to prepare for one of those squads, let alone two with completely different styles and game pace. (especially in the NCAA tournament when there isn't a lot of free time to prepare for future opponents). But sadly, this never seemed to be developed to the extent I would have liked to see.



I think certainly some feedback from recruits caused some sort of crises in confidence by Cal. And I firmly believe that was a mistake on his part.

Cal has been able to take facts like Anthony Davis and MKG took the 4th and 5th most shots on the 2012 team and still were drafted 1st and 2nd to great effect. I don't know why he wouldn't be able to take the fact that yes, some players sacrificed minutes during the 2014-15 season but it helped the overall team and it didn't hamper their pro prospects (including guys like Devin Booker and Trey Lyles who might otherwise have been buried on the bench), and turn that into a positive on the recruiting trail.

I think there was also some comments Cal made during the season about people on the bench not working hard enough to deserve to be on the floor. I'm not sure who exactly he was talking about, but if so that's on them.

One example is Derek Willis. I said at the time that Alex Poythress went down with injury that Derek Willis was probably the most important player on the 2014-15 team. The reason being that if he could step in and take Poythress' spot and maintain pure platoons, the whole team would benefit.

Instead, he wasn't mentally ready to do that. (After the most recent season he was interviewed and admitted that despite playing great in the Bahamas, he wasn't mentally ready to be a major contributor that year, which was disappointing to hear. He was a year too late.)

Dominque Hawkins filled in as a third guard in some games, and as I said the team still played really well in those post-Poythress injury games where full platoons were still maintained, but eventually that was the chink that led Cal down the road to start experimenting with the lineup, and the team never performed as well again (except in a few cases like WVU etc. where they were clearly motivated to dominate).

As you suggest, there may have been other reasons that we're not aware of which led Cal to change his strategy during the season.

But regardless of the reason, the fact was that it was obvious DURING the season that the more Cal went away from platoons, the worse the team played. A Hall of Fame caliber coach should have noticed that and corrected it IMO.

And BTW, another person I blame for not correcting that was Joel Justus. If you remember he was hired that season specifically to be the 'Advanced Analytics' guy. I'm not sure what he was doing but that's the type of thing he should have picked up on quickly.

After doing a little research, here are some stats about the system that may indicate exactly what I was proposing before.

UK played 19 games total against the KenPom (in my opinion the best indicator of team strength) top 50. Of those top 50, only 3 were top 10, and 2 of those were the last 2 games against Notre Dame (#9) and Wisc (#2).

Only 5 of those games did UK have a 10+ point margin in the second half, 2 before Christmas, 3 after.

Games where no one played over 30 minutes is 6. 3/6 had a double digit lead at half time
Games where no one played over 25 minutes is 2. Both had double digit leads at half time

Half time margins by # of players that played 10 or more minutes (# of Players/Average Half Margin):
10/22
9/10.4
8/5.8
7/4

That alone might signal that as the games get tight, substitutions tighten. When looking back, I think the LSU game was where things got a little tight for Cal. You were far enough along that the whole 40-0 was a real possibility, and he didn't play anybody over 30 minutes in that game, and almost lost. Only one time after that did we not have a single player play more than 30 minutes. After Poythress went down (he only played in 2 of those 19 games btw) the team was really just 7 deep. Lyles moved to starting, and only Ulis and Booker were on the same level as the others. The platoon is nice in theory, but in a tight game against a great team there is almost no coach that is going to sit Kat for Johnson or Cauley-Stein for Lee. But if that coach has a comfortable lead, and the game seems pretty well in hand, then you will just to rest those players. But it would be hard to take either or both of your best players off the floor just because it is somebody else's turn.

 

[JPScott]

I know you've probably posted this before, but could you post thd the stats from the 2015 team with Poythress and then without. Also, how do those stats with Poythress stack up against past historically great teams?

As I mentioned the stats are available, both on my website and at least for the 2014-15 team on the UK Athletics site.

Here are some charts you may be interested in. First of all to the question of how the 2014-15 team stacked up to historically great teams, I haven't looked against other historically great NCAA teams but I do have data vs. past great UK teams (in first chart), and against Calipari teams (up until 2014-15 when I made the chart).

As you see in this, the 2014-15 team (in purple) started off high early on but by the end of the season ended with a margin of +20, which placed them 13th all-time among UK teams.

As far as Calipari's UK teams, they did end up the best among Calipari teams but not that much better than the 2011-12 National Championship team. (still very good mind you, just not off the charts)

 

[Cowtown Cat]

As I mentioned the stats are available, both on my website and at least for the 2014-15 team on the UK Athletics site.

Here are some charts you may be interested in. First of all to the question of how the 2014-15 team stacked up to historically great teams, I haven't looked against other historically great NCAA teams but I do have data vs. past great UK teams (in first chart), and against Calipari teams (up until 2014-15 when I made the chart).

As you see in this, the 2014-15 team (in purple) started off high early on but by the end of the season ended with a margin of +20, which placed them 13th all-time among UK teams.

As far as Calipari's UK teams, they did end up the best among Calipari teams but not that much better than the 2011-12 National Championship team. (still very good mind you, just not off the charts)

So, basically losing Poy and the platoon hurt 2015 UK significantly.

 

[JPScott]

In terms of UK's efficiency on the court, below are some charts showing UK's points per possession. (i.e. how efficient they were on the court).

First of all, if you look at the differential points per possession (i.e. UK's PPP - Opp PPP) you see a gradual drop as the year went on, similar to the drop in the scoring margin drop seen.

Why did that occur? If you look at UK's PPP itself, you see that the average didn't really change much over the course of the season.

The big difference was in UK's opponents points per possession, which as you see continued to rise the further they went into the season.

And one part of their opponent's improved points per possession was improved shooting as the season progressed. UK's defense seemed to become less effective the longer they went.

Of course I have my theories for why this occurred. For those who like to argue that shortening the rotation leads to more efficient execution, the data simply doesn't back this up.

Of course one key thing they're missing is that running tight 5-man platoons is actually the epitome of running a short rotation. It's just that you have two tight groups instead of one. And the fact that you have two instead of one helps solve a lot of the problems inherent in running a short bench (i.e. fatigue no longer becomes an issue and fouls are not nearly as problematic.)

 

[Aike]

In terms of UK's efficiency on the court, below are some charts showing UK's points per possession. (i.e. how efficient they were on the court).

First of all, if you look at the differential points per possession (i.e. UK's PPP - Opp PPP) you see a gradual drop as the year went on, similar to the drop in the scoring margin drop seen.

Why did that occur? If you look at UK's PPP itself, you see that the average didn't really change much over the course of the season.

The big difference was in UK's opponents points per possession, which as you see continued to rise the further they went into the season.

And one part of their opponent's improved points per possession was improved shooting as the season progressed. UK's defense seemed to become less effective the longer they went.

Of course I have my theories for why this occurred. For those who like to argue that shortening the rotation leads to more efficient execution, the data simply doesn't back this up.

Of course one key thing they're missing is that running tight 5-man platoons is actually the epitome of running a short rotation. It's just that you have two tight groups instead of one. And the fact that you have two instead of one helps solve a lot of the problems inherent in running a short bench (i.e. fatigue no longer becomes an issue and fouls are not nearly as problematic.)

Those are raw PPP figures not weighted, correct?

I would offer that one reason opponents' PPP improved was that they got better at exploiting our switching defense. Savvy teams would work the ball until they got a preferred matchup, then attack.

This doesn't negate your points about platooning, only mix in additional moving parts.