The importance of depth

[DerekMcPwn]

It seems like John Calipari’s recruiting has spoiled Kentucky fans to the point where we now look to be, at minimum, two deep with five-stars at every position. And the consensus is that if we only returned one of Vanderbilt or Washington, we’d be much weaker.

And yet, we failed to win a title with one of the deepest squads ever assembled in 2015. By contrast, our 2012 championship team ran only seven deep, with no backcourt depth to speak of. Teague and Lamb pretty much ran the entire show start to finish. For all intents and purposes, our 2012 “bench” was just Darius Miller and Kyle Wiltjer.

When I look at a lot of title team rosters, depth isn’t a trait that stands out. For the most part, they appear to have a very complete and cohesive starting five, with a quality sixth man playing nearly starter minutes. UNC’s 2017 championship team is the deepest in recent memory, and even that team didn’t have the sort of depth we as Kentucky fans are always hunting for. Joel Berry and Justin Jackson, the leading scorers, both averaged more than 30 minutes per game.

It seems like the recipe for championships is to get the strongest possible starting five and pray to every pantheon that nobody gets injured or massively underwhelms. Maybe that’s why a lot of other coaches trend toward all-or-nothing results, while Cal is consistently successful but with fewer championships.

How important is depth really? Would you prefer a class with the number 1, 2, and 5 players and nobody else, or a class with the number 6, 10, 14, 17, 19, 25, and 30 players?

 

[jrpross]

Depth is a little overrated. I’d rather go seven deep with top end talent like an Anthony Davis than 10 deep without it but with really solid players.

That being said, it’s not depth I worry about with PJ, Vando, & Gabriel. It’s experience. Cal teams fare the best when there is returning talent to guide the youngsters while they grow and to pick up the slack when they have understandably freshman-like games.

 

[GonzoCat90]

It depends on the make-up of your team.

If you have veterans and lack a transcendent talent, depth is better, because it maximizes the number of guys you can put on the floor who might be your best contributor on a given night, and there's little drop off, allowing you to sustain full performance for the entire game.

If you have mega-freshmen, I think depth hurts them in some ways. They need minutes and reps, and sitting on the bench takes that away. It also means you're replacing them with a guy who, while deserving to play, isn't as good as that super talented freshman.

Ideally, you probably go 8 deep with 4 top 10 recruits, 2 sophomores who were borderline OAD, and two seniors who have been through the battles. Easier said than done.

To put names to it, Andrew Harrison, Jamal Murray, MKG, Terrence Jones, Anthony Davis, with Dominique Hawkins, Darius Miller and Bam Adebayo off the bench.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

Depth is only important when you don't have it.

 

[DerekMcPwn]

It depends on the make-up of your team.

If you have veterans and lack a transcendent talent, depth is better, because it maximizes the number of guys you can put on the floor who might be your best contributor on a given night, and there's little drop off, allowing you to sustain full performance for the entire game.

If you have mega-freshmen, I think depth hurts them in some ways. They need minutes and reps, and sitting on the bench takes that away. It also means you're replacing them with a guy who, while deserving to play, isn't as good as that super talented freshman.

Ideally, you probably go 8 deep with 4 top 10 recruits, 2 sophomores who were borderline OAD, and two seniors who have been through the battles. Easier said than done.

To put names to it, Andrew Harrison, Jamal Murray, MKG, Terrence Jones, Anthony Davis, with Dominique Hawkins, Darius Miller and Bam Adebayo off the bench.

“Easier said than done” is right! Good luck recruiting a Bam Adebayo to come off the bench. Looking back, we were so lucky that Anthony Davis and Terrence Jones were both physically durable players with plenty of endurance who could defend without fouling.

 

[KYtotheCore]

My wife says width counts too.

 

[nickhorvathsuxazz]

It seems like John Calipari’s recruiting has spoiled Kentucky fans to the point where we now look to be, at minimum, two deep with five-stars at every position. And the consensus is that if we only returned one of Vanderbilt or Washington, we’d be much weaker.

And yet, we failed to win a title with one of the deepest squads ever assembled in 2015. By contrast, our 2012 championship team ran only seven deep, with no backcourt depth to speak of. Teague and Lamb pretty much ran the entire show start to finish. For all and intents and purposes, our 2012 “bench” was just Darius Miller and Kyle Wiltjer.

When I look at a lot of title team rosters, depth isn’t a trait that stands out. For the most part, they appear to have a very complete and cohesive starting five, with a quality sixth man playing nearly starter minutes. UNC’s 2017 championship team is the deepest in recent memory, and even that team didn’t have the sort of depth we as Kentucky fans are always hunting for. Joel Berry and Justin Jackson, the leading scorers, both averaged more than 30 minutes per game.

It seems like the recipe for championships is to get the strongest possible starting five and pray to every pantheon that nobody gets injured or massively underwhelms. Maybe that’s why a lot of other coaches trend toward all-or-nothing results, while Cal is consistently successful but with fewer championships.

How important is depth really? Would you prefer a class with the number 1, 2, and 5 players and nobody else, or a class with the number 6, 10, 14, 17, 19, 25, and 30 players?

It depends if the 14-30 players realize they're multi-year players or not. If 4 of those 5 return, give me that. If they all think they're one n done, give me the 1,2,5 class.

 

[Bluegrassking]

Too much almost always beats not enough, I sez.

Eight is enough but I'd rather have ten.
Six and seven means a lot of prayer...that no one gets hurt, that there is no foul trouble, that nobody is having an off night, and that nobody needs the bench as a motivator.

The best college team I've ever seen was deep as a mine.

 

[Sparkaces1]

Once Baker got hurt last year we had three guards on the roster. Diallo was MIA most of the season and Green was hurt several games. Depth at guard was a major problem last year, Cal clearly doesn't want that to happen again.

Cal has gotten caught twice with no depth at guard at those were prob his two worst teams.

 

[Xception]

Depth is vastly underrated on this board, without it you are vulnerable to the whims of a ref. More times than not our top players are quickly straddled with two first half fouls in the tournament. Effectively preventing us from building a lead and instead trying to keep the other team from building a lead against our less effective subs.

Fox and Monk had foul trouble against UNC , probably win that game and the title with more talented players behind them. UK gets a very poor whistle in the tournament because the refs have an agenda against Cal, depth is needed to counteract that. Under normal conditions depth isn’t a big deal but our condition isn’t normal.

 

[caneintally]

Duke has proven , to me at least , how important some depth is . K's biggest weakness the last 5-10 years is he seems to built rosters that are great 1-5 but then just have nothing beyond the 6th player or so. Last season was another case of this . You don't need 13 good players but you do need 8-9 . You need 2 guards and 2 bigs on the bench who can contribute and can start if someone is injured. And in the SEC with how fouls are called I would argue you need 5 guards and 5 bigs . UK has the 5 guards and 3 bigs ( since Johnson is front court player we will call him a big for this sake) . We need 2 of the 3 guys who went pro to return . That happens and we have ideal depth .

 

[STEVECAT]

Depends on what refs we get

 

[Cowtown Cat]

I'm with @GonzoCat90 on this one in that a lot depends on the team makeup. It was important in 2015 because we only needed 5 out of 10 guys to play well on a given night. I guess you could say that KAT was a transcendent talent, but he didn't really turn it on until very late in the season. What made our depth so valuable that year was that our second 5 was damn near as good as our first 5. Losing Poythress took away our most important weapon, our second 5.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

“Easier said than done” is right! Good luck recruiting a Bam Adebayo to come off the bench. Looking back, we were so lucky that Anthony Davis and Terrence Jones were both physically durable players with plenty of endurance who could defend without fouling.

Pretty unbelievable how well that 2012 team defended without fouling. Especially with the whistle we usually get. Cal should receive much more credit than he gets for how well that team defended.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Pretty unbelievable how well that 2012 team defended without fouling. Especially with the whistle we usually get. Cal should receive much more credit than he gets for how well that team defended.

When you have Anthony Davis patrolling the paint, it's a lot easier for players not to foul. If a player blew by one of our guards/forwards, Davis was always lying in wait so our other players didn't have to grab and push.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

My wife says width counts too.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

When you have Anthony Davis patrolling the paint, it's a lot easier for players not to foul. If a player blew by one of our guards/forwards, Davis was always lying in wait so our other players didn't have to grab and push.

That's very true, but still. We literally had zero depth that year, like none. As physical as that team was, it's pretty amazing what they did on the defensive end.

 

[fatguy87]

The better the team, the smaller the bench in general.

If there isn't much difference between your 5 or 6 best players than the rest of the team, then top group probably isn't outstanding. Also, the more time for the 5 or 6 best players on the team should increase your team's performance. We wouldn't have wanted Vargas to play 15 minutes a game in 2012 unless it were absolutely necessary, for an extreme example.

Depth's primary role is providing a buffer against the unpredictable, like injuries. Otherwise it's going to be better to stick with playing your best players.

 

[DerekMcPwn]

The better the team, the smaller the bench in general.

If there isn't much difference between your 5 or 6 best players than the rest of the team, then top group probably isn't outstanding. Also, the more time for the 5 or 6 best players on the team should increase your team's performance. We wouldn't have wanted Vargas to play 15 minutes a game in 2012 unless it were absolutely necessary, for an extreme example.

Depth's primary role is providing a buffer against the unpredictable, like injuries. Otherwise it's going to be better to stick with playing your best players.

That sounds intuitive, but when I say our 2012 team lacked depth, I don’t just mean Anthony Davis was worlds better than the subs, I mean we had no quality subs at most positions. We didn’t have a whole second roster of Wenyen Gabriel/Dominique Hawkins type players. We were switching directly into Eloy Vargas and Jarrod Polson.

All of that just goes to show how much luck factors into college basketball tournament results. That team doesn’t win the national championship if even a single one of our starters goes down with an injury. Not just AD. Every one of those guys was indispensable.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

That sounds intuitive, but when I say our 2012 team lacked depth, I don’t just mean Anthony Davis was worlds better than the subs, I mean we had no quality subs at most positions. We didn’t have a whole second roster of Wenyen Gabriel/Dominique Hawkins type players. We were switching directly into Eloy Vargas and Jarrod Polson.

All of that just goes to show how much luck factors into college basketball tournament results. That team doesn’t win the national championship if even a single one of our starters goes down with an injury. Not just AD. Every one of those guys was indispensable.

This. It was basically our starting five, Miller and Wiltjer.

 

[Kybluedude]

It sure helps in practice and when the injury bug hits. The bench guys return as well.

 

[JonathanW]

It seems like John Calipari’s recruiting has spoiled Kentucky fans to the point where we now look to be, at minimum, two deep with five-stars at every position. And the consensus is that if we only returned one of Vanderbilt or Washington, we’d be much weaker.

And yet, we failed to win a title with one of the deepest squads ever assembled in 2015. By contrast, our 2012 championship team ran only seven deep, with no backcourt depth to speak of. Teague and Lamb pretty much ran the entire show start to finish. For all intents and purposes, our 2012 “bench” was just Darius Miller and Kyle Wiltjer.

When I look at a lot of title team rosters, depth isn’t a trait that stands out. For the most part, they appear to have a very complete and cohesive starting five, with a quality sixth man playing nearly starter minutes. UNC’s 2017 championship team is the deepest in recent memory, and even that team didn’t have the sort of depth we as Kentucky fans are always hunting for. Joel Berry and Justin Jackson, the leading scorers, both averaged more than 30 minutes per game.

It seems like the recipe for championships is to get the strongest possible starting five and pray to every pantheon that nobody gets injured or massively underwhelms. Maybe that’s why a lot of other coaches trend toward all-or-nothing results, while Cal is consistently successful but with fewer championships.

How important is depth really? Would you prefer a class with the number 1, 2, and 5 players and nobody else, or a class with the number 6, 10, 14, 17, 19, 25, and 30 players?

I think someone else had this exact thread 3-4 weeks ago. I did the research then, and so am not just going off memory.
But the past 10 or so champs mostly all went 7-9 deep. I don't think any only went 6 deep. I think our 12 team was the least deep team during that period.
Would Cal have loved to have one more good player in 12? Yeah. But Vargas sucked! So whenever Davis went out our only 4-5 player was Jones (who liked outside more).
But what allowed that team to be so good despite not being deeper was Miller's flexibility. You could sub him for anyone, and he could guard that guys man.

The 15 team was only 9 deep after the Poythress injury in December. Not greatly deeper than championship teams. And that 9th guy (Lee) was borderline, in fact he averaged <10mpg after the Poythress injury which is the team we took into the NCAA-T, so you could argue we only went 8 deep (only 1 more than 2012).
Now I will grant you that the 14 runner-up team was less deep than most champs with only 6 guys (all 6 playing starter minutes).
Your citation of the 17 UNCheat team makes no sense, saying it was deep, and had only 2 guys play 30+mpg, but not as deep as UK is used to. We typically have 2-3 guys play 30+mpg.

Depth allows you flexibility, when you don't have players that can play 3-4 positions.
Depth allows you to not be crushed by an injury, or foul trouble.
Depth promotes competition at practices which improves the team.

As to your question (Would you prefer a class with the number 1, 2, and 5 players and nobody else, or a class with the number 6, 10, 14, 17, 19, 25, and 30 players?). Define "nobody else". A team with 1, 2 & 5, with Polson, Vargas, Hood, Mulder, Wynyard would struggle. But of the other guys were instead upperclassman versions of Willis & Hawkins. Then that team could be good. Also the #X player has a different level of talent every year. So there just isn't enough information to answer your question.

 

[ralphdaltonfan]

It seems like John Calipari’s recruiting has spoiled Kentucky fans to the point where we now look to be, at minimum, two deep with five-stars at every position. And the consensus is that if we only returned one of Vanderbilt or Washington, we’d be much weaker.

And yet, we failed to win a title with one of the deepest squads ever assembled in 2015. By contrast, our 2012 championship team ran only seven deep, with no backcourt depth to speak of. Teague and Lamb pretty much ran the entire show start to finish. For all intents and purposes, our 2012 “bench” was just Darius Miller and Kyle Wiltjer.

When I look at a lot of title team rosters, depth isn’t a trait that stands out. For the most part, they appear to have a very complete and cohesive starting five, with a quality sixth man playing nearly starter minutes. UNC’s 2017 championship team is the deepest in recent memory, and even that team didn’t have the sort of depth we as Kentucky fans are always hunting for. Joel Berry and Justin Jackson, the leading scorers, both averaged more than 30 minutes per game.

It seems like the recipe for championships is to get the strongest possible starting five and pray to every pantheon that nobody gets injured or massively underwhelms. Maybe that’s why a lot of other coaches trend toward all-or-nothing results, while Cal is consistently successful but with fewer championships.

How important is depth really? Would you prefer a class with the number 1, 2, and 5 players and nobody else, or a class with the number 6, 10, 14, 17, 19, 25, and 30 players?

Great post. I'd say quality depth is having no drop off when bench guys come in and that is what UK had in '12. Then the role bench guys like Wiltjer would step up and hit a big 3 or make a few, and Vargas was a body who can bang/give fouls and spare some frontcourt guys in foul trouble as the last guy in rotation.

My biggest issue with how depth is applied is how coaches fall into trap of thinking you just insert it in each game. I'd argue in NCAA play, it's more important to have guys you can go to when someone or some guys are not playing well/foul trouble, etc....but then stick with the hot hands-don't have this set insertion of them into games based on what you did all year, nor do you yank them out if they are playing better in that game then usual player. That's why you have 6 games (hopefully) and it's why you have depth--when it's needed, it's there. Give me a strong 7 and rotate the 8th and then get some talent that is down the road developmental types.

Last point--if you are deep, you have to play fast/pressure people. Extend game, full court, get up and down because your depth has advantage. Fouls called, more game time, making opponent work/wear down....it's why you have it. Does no good to have a ton of talent and play half the court, you lose the advantage.