If you are unfamiliar with the NCAA version that released in March, I will give a quick overview of the features that are the same, and then highlight additional features unique to the pro game.

Same as NCAA - More Detail Here

Four Factors - Points per possession (PPP), shooting efficiency (eFG%), rebounding (ORB%), turnovers (TO%), and free throw rate (FTR).

Lineups - Comparison of players on the floor sorted by player size instead of jersey number. Identify cross-matches and offensive roles for each team.

Rotations - Visual representation of player stints. Observe substitution patterns, track game flow with the win probability chart, and check minutes played, plus/minus (+/-), and personal fouls.

Substitutions and Rewind Mode - Logs of every substitution. Click a substitution to display lineups from earlier points in the game. Review key stretches and analyze the matchups.

**NEW FEATURE** Click the rotation charts to enter rewind mode.

New for NBA Coach’s Gamecast

This is where this version becomes more powerful. Rules for Timeouts, Challenges, and Team Fouls1 are much more complex in the NBA than NCAA, which is a good thing for a smart coach. As the rules become more complicated, there is a greater ability to gain an edge by using them to your advantage.

If you haven’t seen my previous article explaining NBA timeouts and challenges, along with strategic considerations involved, I strongly suggest you give it a read now. It is essentially a prerequisite for understanding what Coach’s Gamecast displays.

Teams get one challenge per game and earn a second if the first is successful. Unlike college, winning a challenge does not necessarily mean the team gets to keep their timeout. If a team is using a second challenge, or if the challenge triggers a mandatory timeout, the team will still be charged a timeout for their successful challenge.2

In this gamecast, challenges are shown as “call overturned” or “call stands”, with indicators of which timeouts were charged. Timeouts are less easily judged as simply successful or not. However, the complex timeout rules of the NBA lead to some useful categorization.

Timeout Types

Preemptive - A timeout taken by a team before the time they would be charged with one. For example, if the home team takes the first timeout of the quarter at 8:15.

Away First - The first timeout of a quarter if it is taken by the away team, thus delaying the home team’s mandatory timeout from 7:00 to 3:00.

Forced - A mandatory timeout assigned to a team due to a dead-ball after either the 7:00 or 3:00 mark. The gamecast includes whether the team assigned the timeout will be on offense or defense coming out of the huddle.

Just in Time - A live-ball timeout taken by a team that would have been assigned a mandatory timeout at the next dead-ball (e.g., the home team takes the first timeout of the quarter at 6:45).

Double Mandatory - The second timeout of a quarter taken by the same team that took or was charged with the first timeout of the quarter.

Forfeited - Timeouts lost at the end of the third quarter, with three minutes left in the game3, or at the start of an overtime period.

Voluntary - All other timeouts. The first and second timeouts of a quarter are never voluntary. All overtime timeouts, two per OT with no carryover, are voluntary.

These timeout types can be hypothesized to be better or worse than one another. I hold two assumptions:

1. Timeouts are good for the team that uses them. They are a tool in the coach’s kit.

2. Timeouts are most often better for the team that is next on offense, partially because coaches can draw up after-timeout (ATO) plays.4 The cases where this is not true are most often in late game situations, which are not part of the mandatory timeout equation.

The first assumption I think is fairly reasonable and suggests that forfeiting timeouts is undesirable. Most often I see timeouts forfeited by teams in blowout wins. However, I have seen cases where teams forfeit multiple timeouts in losses and that raises a red flag for me.

The latter assumption warrants further analysis that I may be able to do in the future now that I have a multi-year NBA timeout database. But if it holds, the “Forced - Defense” type of timeout is also undesirable. If a team waits until it is charged a mandatory timeout at a dead-ball, and the other team will inbound after the timeout, the application will highlight that timeout in red.

Both “Forced - Offense” and “Just in Time” imply that the team next to be charged a mandatory timeout has allowed the game clock to fall below the time threshold. In the case of “Forced - Offense”, there was a dead-ball, but the team was fortunate to be in possession when it occurred. This is displayed with an orange fill.

“Just in Time” would cover the case where, for example, a team dribbles into the frontcourt and takes a timeout prior to the dead-ball that would force them into one. This still indicates that the team has taken some risk and therefore is shown in yellow.5

The other yellow-coded type is the “Away First” timeout. NBA timeout rules are advantageous to the road team as they are charged the latter mandatory timeout each period. While there may be a perfectly good reason for an away team to use the first timeout of a quarter, it does provide the home team a reprieve. Depending on how close to 7:00 it was taken, a coach may have been better off waiting. These require closer inspection.

An “Away First” timeout also opens the door for a potential away-team “Double Mandatory” timeout. Either side could take the first two timeouts of a quarter, thus allowing the other team an exemption from a mandatory timeout in that period. This effectively gives the opponent an additional “Voluntary” timeout to be used prior to the next potential forfeiture checkpoint.

“Double Mandatory” timeouts are highlighted in orange, while “Voluntary” timeouts are in a light yellow, indicating they might be worth reviewing to better understand why they were used.

Finally, “Preemptive” timeouts are shown in gray as they represent standard practice. However, there still could be better or worse uses. If a home team takes their first timeout early in a quarter (e.g., 10:30) and the away team follows with a timeout at 9:30, both would be “Preemptive”. But the away team preempted a timeout that would not have been mandatory until the dead-ball under 3:00. If they could have held off longer, perhaps the home team would have taken a “Double Mandatory”.

How to Use

1. Select a game from the scoreboard or team schedule pages.

2. Click any substitution to view previous lineups. Or click within the rotations chart.

3. Read tooltips (hover) to learn more.

Notes

• Data reliability depends on ESPN APIs.

• The app is intended for games from the 2017-2018 season and beyond because timeout rules were significantly different before then.

• Challenges were introduced in 2019-2020 and starting in 2023-2024, teams could earn a second challenge if they won their first. The app will adapt depending on the game year.

• Coach’s Gamecast currently refreshes data every 30 seconds for live games.

• I prefer the desktop version so I can see all the elements simultaneously, but I have worked to optimize the mobile UI as well so I can still use the app while I am at games in person.

Feedback

What have I missed that would make this tool even better?

Please provide feature requests or report issues whenever possible. And please do share with anyone else that you think might be interested.

Thanks, hope you enjoy!

Subscribe now

Even without the trophy, this year’s Wildcats make a good case to be the school’s best ever. They were the Big 12 regular season and tournament champions and got Tucson back to the Final Four for the first time since 2001. It was a remarkable season.

In the postgame press conference, Coach Lloyd said, “Obviously [Michigan has] the kryptonite right now. So that’s going to be a fun thing for me to try to figure out this offseason.”

I appreciate that amidst an extremely disappointing moment for himself and his team, Coach Lloyd would evoke the word “fun” in this manner. As a coach, this is all part of getting better by solving the next puzzle in front of them. That’s exactly the winning mindset you want from your program’s leader.

Last week, I wrote that I wish the Michigan matchup was a seven-game series. The Wolverines would certainly be favored, but not by as much as it might seem based on one game. In Tommy’s spirit of having some fun learning from this, and with the benefit of a whole lot of hindsight, let’s take a look at what the Wildcats would re-emphasize and what they might have changed if they had another crack at it.

Michigan Game 2

Adjustment: Make more shots

When a team loses like the Wildcats did, it can be tough to rebuild the confidence of players who looked at least a little shaken. While you can’t BS away some of the issues, you want to convince the team that what happened was an anomaly. So while this is really a fake adjustment, I think it is a good one to start with psychologically.

There’s a fairly empty platitude that basketball games sometimes come down to who makes shots. Coming into the game, Michigan led Arizona in eFG% 58.0 to 55.1. But on Saturday, the Wildcats had an eFG% of only 40.8%, while Michigan’s was 56.5%.

Some of that is due to the defense, but there also may have been shooting luck involved. The question would be, “did we get the shots we wanted and not make them or did we not get the shots we wanted?” Not every shot was wide open, but I think there was a large number of shots that didn’t go down on Saturday that the Arizona players would say they would make more often than they would miss.

It might be tough to watch, but it highlights that part of the reason this game was never close was partially just due to bad shooting. That’s not a big consolation after this one game, but if there was another, it’s a positive because regression to the mean would be on the Wildcats’ side.

In another contest, it’s unlikely that Brayden Burries, a 39% three-shooter, will go 2-10 from three with most of them very open. It’s unlikely Koa Peat, a 54% two-point finisher, would go 5-17 from two.

At 68.1%, the Wildcats even shot under their season free throw percentage of 73.4%, including a crucial point in the game where Mo Krivas missed two followed by Ivan Kharchenkov missing the front end of a 1-and-1 when the score had closed to 30-23.

Emphasize: Get more shots

Arizona actually won the total rebound battle 44-40. That’s hard to do when you miss nine more shots and six more free throws than your opponent. I prefer to look at rebounding percentage broken down by offense vs defense.

When we look season-long, Arizona’s ORB% was 38.0% and Michigan’s DRB% was 75.1%. In this game, Arizona rebounded 38.3% of their own shots, so clearly won this battle.

On the season, Michigan’s ORB% was 34.6% and Arizona’s DRB% was 75.5%. In this game, Michigan got 29.7% of the boards on their misses. So this result fell right in the middle.

Overall, Arizona won the rebounding battle and I think it would be worth emphasizing that they could dominate that factor even more by being aggressive pursuing loose ball rebounds on the defensive end of the floor.

Meanwhile, it felt like the Wildcats turned the ball over a ton, even though they finished with only one more turnover than the Wolverines. But that is a place for improvement. Arizona had averaged a turnover on 15.2% of possessions and turned it over 18.1% of the time in this game.

Michigan gets credit for some of this as well due to its defensive scheme, but I think it would likely be less effective after being seen once. It is one thing to say “pack it in and make Arizona shoot”. Almost every team that the Wildcats have played this year has tried some version of this. But it is another thing entirely to commit to and execute that strategy.

Here is Michigan’s first possession of the championship game versus UConn, annotated by the great Jordan Sperber at HoopVision:

As we discussed last week, the Wolverines use a switch-heavy defensive scheme, 1-4 around the perimeter. But Arizona does not use a lot of guard-guard actions, which, as expected, made the switching a lot less relevant. So what did the Michigan defense look like against Arizona, again credit to Jordan Sperber:

Sperber’s article is worth a read to fully explain how the Wolverines guarded by going under on most screens. Part of the adjustment is already covered in our “make more shots” section. If a team is going to regularly go under screens, the easiest way to punish it is to knock down some shots off the dribble.

But in the cases where a player doesn’t take that shot, they need to know they are driving into a crowd. Arizona would need to emphasize that drivers have a plan before getting into the paint, either to get a shot or to have a pass back out option in mind. Ivan Kharchenkov was the primary, but not only, culprit here.

It’s good to give a look at an example of where the Wildcats had success by not over-dribbling.

Adjustment: Change Location and Angle of Ball Screens

The most common way of attacking “under” ball screen coverage is by re-screening, sometimes called Twist action. Here’s Fran Fraschilla explaining it at a coaches’ clinic and some in-game examples. You’ll see players use this to walk the screen closer to the basket, to give themselves an angle to step back into a three, or even just to make the defense work over and over again.1

Another option, one that Krivas has already used this year and that all of the posts could have used versus Michigan, would be to dribble lower against the sagging defender.

The deeper these dribble handoffs occur, the more difficult it is for the perimeter defender to go under. In the situations where Aday Mara stayed back to cover the rim, there wasn’t a lot of advantage in Koa Peat or Tobe Awaka attacking at him. However, they still could have improved their positioning with a single strong dribble to the free throw line. If a defender still chose to go under, this is an open three-point opportunity off the catch.

Emphasize: Play Through the Posts

If you watched the championship game, UConn posted up Tarris Reed Jr. a lot with mixed results. However, this was a battle that Arizona won, especially with Krivas. Typically, the Wildcats move the ball east-west on the perimeter to set up high-low action between the two posts. But they were most successful just getting the ball to the wing and throwing it into the low (usually left) block.

Adjustment: Improved Rotations

Despite Mara’s career-high 26 points, I would argue that Krivas mostly won the battle with him on that end as well. Here are the baskets that Krivas gave up to Mara:

A lot was made over Elliot Cadeau “intentionally” missing shots off the backboard. The only time I’m confident that occurred was the first play of the game. In the first two clips, Krivas could use a slight adjustment to not help quite as hard on Cadeau and stick with the strategy of making him be a scorer. Krivas certainly should get a hand up on the Mara 15-footer, but that was the only bucket that Mara got on him 1-on-1.

Here are some of Krivas’s defensive highlights from this game2:

Unfortunately, here were the buckets that Mara got when Krivas was not guarding him:

Put simply, no one on Arizona can cover Aday Mara except Mo Krivas. In the 21:02 that Mara and Krivas shared the floor, which included the first few minutes of the game where the Wildcats were in a daze, Arizona was plus 5. Let me say that again: the Wildcats beat the Wolverines in the minutes that Krivas and Mara both played.

In the 8:47 that Mara played and Krivas didn’t, the Wildcats were minus 15.3 In a rematch, Arizona would need to strongly consider making time be 0:00. Matching Krivas’s minutes to Mara’s wouldn’t necessarily mean Krivas would need to play more, but he could have. Krivas, who was clearly Arizona’s best player against Michigan, played only 28 minutes, despite recently playing 32 against Utah State and 35 against Purdue.

The other rotations to look at would involve the three subs, who had the three worst per-minute plus-minus: Awaka minus 16 in 17 minutes, Dell’Orso minus 20 in 18 minutes, and Aristode minus 9 in 10 minutes.

Some of that was necessary because of Jaden Bradley’s foul trouble, which he would need to be more aware of as it looked like Cadeau and others were purposely trying to put fouls on him. And Aristode likely only got into the game because Kharchenkov was struggling so significantly on offense.

However, the starters getting spooked to start the game likely led to the balance between starter and bench minutes to be less than ideal. The bench combined for 50 minutes4, compared to 21 in the Purdue game.

Adjustment: Take Timeouts

One way to settle your starters is to sub them out. Another is to use a timeout. Coach Lloyd took only one timeout during the competitive portion of this game. That timeout came at 14:27 with a 16-5 score. It was the earliest that Arizona has used a timeout this year and many might argue it did not come soon enough.

This has been a topic repeatedly in this newsletter. Coach Lloyd prefers his team to “figure it out”. But in a situation where the team looked not itself, this may have been a spot to zag.

When Arizona went on a 7-0 run from 8:51 to 7:21, Dusty May called his first timeout. The Wildcats got one bucket closer before the Wolverines pulled away again and were back up 12 when Brayden Burries got trapped and called the team’s second timeout. By the time Coach Lloyd took his third timeout, at 12:17 in the second half and facing a 72-45 deficit, the game was over.

As I’ve said all season, it’s reasonable to want to keep two or more timeouts for the end of the game. But if the game is already lost by then, it doesn’t do a whole lot of good. Arizona doesn’t get to carry over its remaining timeout to next year.

Emphasize: Covering Cadeau

This was probably my biggest error in evaluating this game. I thought Arizona’s guards would win their matchups and did not give Cadeau enough credit. However, I think the scout was mostly correct and that the execution left some to be desired.

As discussed above, Arizona could have done a little better to stay home so as to be in better defensive rebounding position. Cadeau shot 5-17 from the floor, but gets a lot of credit for his passing, especially in transition as he finished with 10 assists.

There were two breakdowns that could be addressed. First, Cadeau’s best option as a scorer is to shoot the three coming off the ball screen. Arizona had some trouble getting through screens to challenge that shot.

In the first two clips, Arizona is soft-hedging using a show and recover under. This was not a screen defense I saw much of the Wildcats using this year and Cadeau recognized it and called for a re-screen in clip one before knocking down the three. Clips three and four show Wildcats getting stuck on (or even under) the screener. This could all be cleaned up.

The other breakdown was very uncharacteristic of Arizona and involved allowing Cadeau to reject the ball screen against drop coverage.

As designed, Krivas is aligning himself to protect the driving lane as Cadeau comes off the screen. It is the on-ball defender’s job to push the ball handler into that screen. Once Cadeau is able to reject the screen and get into the paint, the Wildcats were in trouble.

Although, this never led directly to a bucket, Michigan took advantage of Arizona being out of position in three different ways: a kick to a shooter whose defender helped, attacking a switch leading to a foul, and an offensive rebound leading to a three-pointer.

Wrap Up

As fans are inclined to do, there were plenty who were quick to assign blame, either to specific players or to the coaches. I hope the above breakdown is not taken to be that. When a game goes awry like this one did, everyone takes account of what they could have done better. And since I’ve spent all year doing postgame breakdowns, it seemed only right to try to explain some of what happened.5

This was a discouraging ending to an amazing season. The coaching staff and players deserve tons of praise and personally, I couldn’t have picked a better year to give extra attention to this program. On behalf of Tucson, thank you to all the members of this program that took us on a really enjoyable ride.

Where From Here?

And just like that, the 2026-2027 season has begun. Arizona has two incoming freshmen committed. Shooting guard Caleb Holt is ranked by ESPN as the #4 player in the class and swingman Cameron Holmes is a 4-star recruit from Phoenix.

On Tuesday, the transfer portal opened. Whatever models teams use to evaluate both the playing ability and now monetary worth of players need to be developed long before now. With over 1,000 players in the portal in the first day, there is no way to realistically scout all of them.

Estimating the market for a player and backchanneling interest in both directions in commonplace. Building a roster is effectively a high-stakes knapsack problem, but connecting with people in recruiting will never lose its importance.

I would only be repeating reports and rumors about what players Arizona might have interest in, but for the potential returners, it’s worthwhile to walk through their situations. First, a big thank you to the seniors: Jaden Bradley, Tobe Awaka, and Anthony Dell’Orso.6

NBA Rookie Contracts

For players considering making the jump to the NBA, there is a great difference between being picked in the first or the second round. Players who are picked in the first round receive a contract that guarantees two years with team options for years three and four. Those options must be exercised by October of the preceding year. In practice, almost no one gets cut before year three and few get cut before year four.

The NBA is currently projecting a 6.65% increase to the salary cap, which is tied to the rookie scale.7 If that projection holds, here are the contracts that players will be set to sign:

1st pick: four-years, $66.9M
10th pick: four-years, $29.2M
20th pick: four-years, $18.9M
30th pick: four-years, $15.0M

There are very few college basketball players that make more than $3.75M per year, the amount the last pick in the first round of the NBA draft will make on average over the length of his contract. Furthermore, the big money comes in players’ second and third contracts, so there is value in starting the clock on a rookie deal as early as possible.

While there is a second round exception available to teams, they are allowed to sign players to minimum salary contracts, use other exceptions, or use cap space to sign players selected in the second round.

Last year, the 31st pick Rasheer Flemming, signed with the Suns for 4-years, $8.7M with a team-option on the final year that has a deadline of June 28th, making it much easier to decline.8 Picks 32-38 signed for the same amount, as did picks 49 and 56.9

Nearly every other player signed a 1-year, $636,435 two-way contract to split time between the NBA and G-League. Despite being drafted, these players are fighting for their NBA lives from day one.

Brayden Burries

Burries is currently being mocked somewhere between 10-20 with a small chance of jumping into the top 10. If he goes at 15, he will make nearly $5M in his first season. This is a no-brainer, Burries has to go.

Koa Peat

There are a lot of people clamoring for Peat to stay an extra year. Projected as a top-10 prospect out of high school, Peat has fallen to the late teens, early twenties range in most mocks. Next year’s draft class is supposedly much weaker and the argument is that if he can show range out to beyond the arc, he could jump back to the top 10 and maybe top 5 in 2027.

Peat actually finished the year at a respectable 35.0% from three including making his final attempt of the season.

That shot looks a lot better now than it did in November, but Peat only averaged 0.6 three-point attempts per game this season. The comp for this is Derrick Williams, who shot 25.0% on 0.5 attempts as a freshmen and then 59.5% on 1.9 attempts as a sophomore, becoming the #2 overall pick in 2011.

No one would expect Peat to shoot 60% from three next year, but if he could even maintain the 35% on 2-3 attempts per game, NBA teams might be much more sold on him.

However, there is a lot of downside risk here. If he decides to return and isn’t able to show range, he may fall off team’s draft boards entirely. He would make $3.9M in year one if drafted at pick 20 and have a team committed to developing him for multiple years. I think that is too good an option to pass up and therefore, he will almost definitely leave.

Motiejus Krivas

Here’s where it starts to get interesting. Krivas was not on draft boards to start the year but has progressively ascended thanks to his play primarily on the defensive end. Mocks have him anywhere between 20-40, but more often recently in the 20’s.

Going 25th, Krivas would make $3.2M in year one. But this starts to get to a risky spot in the draft where a player could easily slip to the second round. Teams are loathe to give promises to players this deep in the first round as those picks are prime to get swapped on draft night.

If he returns, and avoids injury (always a risk), I find it hard to believe he would be anything other than a first-round pick next year. I could see Krivas having a much more important offensive role for the Wildcats next season, being a go to scorer in the post. And if forced to bet on either on Krivas or Peat to extend range to three, I actually like Krivas’s chances more. He shoots a good ball and is a good free throw shooter for a big man, typically a indicator that a player could one day shoot the three.

Krivas will certainly put his name into the draft pool. He will have all the way until May 27th before he will have to decide to keep his name in or withdraw. If his agent is able to get a consensus among teams that he will go in the early twenties, he is probably gone. I would lean slightly to this outcome.

Ivan Kharchenkov

Similar to Jaden Bradley, who twice entered his name in the draft and then withdrew, Kharchenkov should go seek feedback in the draft process. His strength is clearly on the defensive side of the ball, but his offensive weaknesses were just on full display in the Final Four. He needs work as a creator on the offensive end.

If he were to enter the 2026 draft, he would likely be a mid to late second round pick, but he could intrigue some teams during pre-draft workouts. Unless he moves up significantly, I’m not sure why he would consider that a good option. He could also go back to Europe or transfer to another school if he thought there was a better opportunity, financially or playing-wise.

This will probably be a mess. I could see Kharchenkov entering his name in the draft and the transfer portal, only to end up back at Arizona.

Dwayne Aristode

Unfortunately, I would not expect any decision from Kharchenkov until near that May 27th withdrawal date. And that probably means that the Wildcats will lose Aristode.

Both Aristode and Kharchenkov played small forward this season. If they both came back and wanted to start, could they play the 3 and the 4? Maybe, but that would require the coaching staff to make some pretty drastic changes to the way they like to play.

Caleb Holt will absolutely start and although he has referenced wanting to be like Jaden Bradley, he is not currently a high-major point guard. Perhaps he could play that role in some backup minutes like Burries did this year, but I don’t see Arizona starting Holt/Aristode/Kharchenkov on the perimeter. Like Kharchenkov, Aristode needs reps as an on-ball creator to improve and I’m not sure the Cats can go into the season confident they can both start.

If Aristode is satisfied to take a sixth man role, he would see increased minutes next season. Then the question of how much Arizona can afford to pay a sixth man comes into play, especially when it appears they will need to pay a point guard (or two) and a power forward either from the transfer portal or internationally.10

Aristode should definitely get his name into the portal before the April 21st deadline to do so. There is no deadline for him to sign elsewhere or return so he could ride out Kharchenkov’s draft process until the end of May to make a decision. However, many of the offers he could have between now and then might be gone by that time.

Aristode has a wide range of possibilities. If he doesn’t improve as a dribbler, he might never play a game in the NBA. But his upside is super high. I said earlier this season that if I had to guess which guy on this Arizona team would become an NBA all-star, he would be my choice.11

To the dismay of all Aristodians, my gut tells me that development won’t happen at Arizona.

Subscribe now

Final Four Preview

Michigan won the Big Ten regular season championship and lost in the tournament final to Purdue. The Wolverines have played 13 ranked opponents, going 11-2. As far as common opponents, they have played TCU (W), San Diego State (W), Auburn (W), UCLA (W), Purdue (1-1), and Alabama (W).

(Source: ESPN Analytics)

With all due respect to Connecticut and Illinois, either of whom could win a national championship on Monday night, the semifinal matchup between Michigan and Arizona features the best two teams in the country. KenPom1, EvanMiya, and just about anyone using the eye test now rank these teams as the top two in the country and top six on both offense and defense.2

Defensively, these teams are nearly identical. Both have speed on the perimeter and power on the inside. They have the same effective field goal percentage defense, they defensive rebound about the same, and they send opponents to the line at the same rate. Michigan forces slightly fewer turnovers than the Wildcats.

Offensively, Michigan is really a joy to watch. They are incredibly well balanced. Six of the eight players in the Wolverine rotation have usage rates between 18.3% and 21.4%.3 They are an excellent passing team, 99th percentile in assists per game. There will absolutely be a point in this game where it feels like the Arizona defense is chasing Michigan from behind all over the court as the ball swings from Wolverine to Wolverine.

They are also in the 99th percentile in effective field goal percentage and their shot charts are just about analytically perfect.

(Source: CBB Analytics)

They shoot 2.5% fewer paint-non-rim shots than the D1 average and 3.5% fewer midrange shots. All those shots are redistributed to the rim and the corner three. In each area they shoot 3.5% more frequently than the D1 average. And as far as making the shots they take, they are somewhere between above-average and elite from every area on the floor.

However, Arizona has edges in the other three offensive factors, turning the ball over less, offensive rebounding more, and earning more free throw opportunities.

Personnel

Michigan uses an 8-man rotation since backup point guard LJ Cason was lost for the season after suffering an ACL tear at Illinois.4 When breaking a team down offensively, I think using archetypes is a fairly good way to start, and I tend to do that first by evaluating their size and three point shooting.

For context, Jaden Bradley shoots 39% from three, but on only 3.2 attempts per 100 possessions. Brayden Burries shoots 40% on 8.4 attempts. Michigan and Arizona both play at a high but not ultra-high pace of just under 70 possessions per game, with slightly fewer in postseason play.

Point Guard

Elliot Cadeau (3) - 6’1” 180 - 38% on 8.8 - Cadeau is the engine that makes the Michigan offense run. Similar to the last two games against Darius Acuff and Braden Smith, the Wildcats should be happy to go over screens, force Cadeau inside the arc and make him be a scorer.

The difference is Cadeau probably just won’t take the bait. He shoots very few of his shots at the rim or in the midrange and is not very successful when he does. If he drives, he is hoping to get someone to help so he can make the next pass to a teammate who can use that advantage. He will shoot the three if Arizona defenders get stuck on screens.

Wings

Trey McKenney (1) - 6’4” 225 - 38% on 11.1 - McKenney is the best offensive player of this group. He excels beyond the arc, but can also create his own shot. Unlike Cason, McKenney is less of a creator for others, which changes how Michigan looks in the minutes Cadeau goes to the bench. McKenney is an 89% FT shooter, compared to Cadeau’s relatively low 69%.

McKenney is the weakest defender among the Wolverine perimeter players. It would be wise of Arizona to try to put him into some actions and see how he handles it.

Roddy Gayle Jr. (11) - 6’5” 210 - 32% on 4.6 - Gayle is the best defender of this group. His steal rate is decent and his block rate is very high for a guard, plus he contributes on the defensive glass.

He is not nearly as good a three-point shooter, but he will slash and crash the offensive glass. He is also not a great creator for others, primarily because he turns the ball over too much.

Nimari Burnett (4) - 6’5” 195 - 38% on 11.5 - Burnett gets the start at the two because he is a better shooter than Gayle and a better defender than McKenney. Burnett is also not a primary creator, but rather a spot-up shooter, especially from the left side.

Posts

Morez Johnson Jr. (21) - 6’9” 250 - 36% on 1.9 - Johnson’s game is a hybrid version of Koa Peat’s and Tobe Awaka’s. While he has the size and tenacity of Awaka, he moves around the floor more like Peat. He can shoot the three if left wide open but nearly all of his work is done at the rim.

He is an outstanding defender and rebounder that can and will cover all three of Arizona’s posts at some point.

Aday Mara (15) - 7’3” 255 - 33% on 0.6 - Mara is one of the best shot blockers in the country and he alters a lot of attempts. His defensive positioning is not quite as good as Mo Krivas and he has struggled with foul trouble in some games this year.

Offensively, he is a threat as well. He can roll into lobs or post up and finish with either hand. He is also a very good passer for a center. He is a bad free throw shooter, at 55%.

Will Tschetter (42) - 6’8” 230 - 35% on 8.8 - Tschetter changes the game for Michigan because he will defend posts on one end, but spread the floor on the other end. 79% of his shots this season have been three pointers. Michigan’s defense is somehow also better with Tschetter (DRtg: 95.3 on vs. 99.0 off). It is a little surprising to me that he doesn’t play more. Michigan will run after-timeout (ATO) plays for him. Here are two:

Yaxel

Yaxel Lendeborg (23) - 6’9” 240 - 37% on 8.3 - Lendeborg gets a section all to his own because he is Michigan’s best and most versatile player. Despite his size, he is not a post. He is a small forward.

Lendeborg is 23 years old and in his sixth year of college basketball.5 If he were a 19 year old freshmen, he would be in conversations to be a top-five pick in the upcoming draft.

At only 20.5%, Lendeborg has the lowest usage rate among the 15 AP All-Americans. You can compare that to AJ Dybantsa’s 33.9%, for example. He is not what you think of when you think of a star player. He shoots very few bad shots, but rather takes and makes a lot of threes and finishes at the rim. He does not ball stop, does not turn the ball over, and creates a lot of shots for others. His assist to turnover ratio is 3.1, in the 99th percentile in the country.

He is also one of the best Wolverine defenders, able to guard 1-5 against many opponents. His steal and block rates are high and his foul rate is low. He is not quite the rebounder that Johnson and Mara are but he holds his own.

(Source: Basketball Reference)

Optionality

There’s long been an argument for having backups with similar archetypes to the starter that they would replace. It allows a team to run similar offensive and defensive schemes, rather than having to practice multiple. This has recently been replaced by a desire for optionality, a buzzword meaning how flexible a team can be.

As discussed previously, Arizona plays almost all of its possessions with two guards, one small forward, and two posts. They play some with three guards, either with Kharchenkov at the four or out. But that’s about as far as they can adjust.

One advantage that Michigan has is the luxury of playing many different ways, and a lot of that has to do with Yaxel Lendeborg.

Yaxel at the Three

Let’s start with this because it is Lendeborg’s natural position and what the Wolverines will start the game with.

Arizona’s starting lineup has played 28% of its possessions (685 / 2,437). Michigan’s starting lineup has played only 17% (421 / 2,476).6 The numbers indicate that this is a better than average defensive lineup for the Wolverines (primarily because they send opponents to the FT line less), but not quite as good of one offensively as there is less spacing.

Arizona will have to match up pretty much straight down the line. After their Sweet Sixteen win over Alabama, Lendeborg told reporters he felt “disrespected” that the Crimson Tide chose to cover him with a freshman. Well, he is going to get a lot of that on Saturday, because Ivan Kharchenkov is likely to have the assignment.

Very few teams can cover Lendeborg with anyone even close to his size, and when they do, he typically has a major mobility advantage. Kharchenkov gives up 2 inches and 20 pounds, but it would really take Michigan away from their game to have Lendeborg trying to back Kharchenkov down into the post.

Kharchenkov will need to work to keep Lendeborg off the offensive glass and he cannot afford to get into foul trouble. Arizona will not play their three posts together and none of the guards can cover Lendeborg. If Kharchenkov gets fouls, and Michigan stays with their “big” lineup, Dwayne Aristode will have to play. He combined for four minutes of action last weekend and is really a break-in-case-of-emergency option now.

It would not be crazy to say that the Wildcats have the advantage at all four of the other starting spots. Bradley is bigger than Cadeau and just as fast. He is really the perfect type of defender to get narrow through screens and chase Cadeau off/inside the three-point arc. Burries absolutely must win his matchup no matter who is at the other guard spot for the Wolverines.

Johnson is a tough cover for Koa Peat. He is bigger and very aggressive. Peat needs to be ready to go from the tip and battle for every rebound. If there was ever a time for a year of practicing against Tobe Awaka to bear fruit, this is it. My guess is that Mara will outscore Krivas in this game, but Krivas can have a bigger impact if he provides help on Cadeau and Lendeborg and especially if he can out-rebound Mara.

On the defensive end, Lendeborg often is Michigan’s point of attack defender and I would not be surprised to see him start on Jaden Bradley. Cadeau would cover Burries and Burnett on Kharchenkov.

The Wolverine defense has had a ton of success, partially by being extremely switchable on the perimeter. However, that strength is pretty well negated by the fact that Arizona runs very few guard-guard actions to switch.

Arizona does not do a ton to “target” certain matchups, but this would be an opportunity. I specifically think getting Lendeborg switched onto Burries, or onto Anthony Dell’Orso when he is in, would be beneficial for the Wildcats. Their gravity would pull Lendeborg away from help defense and rebounding while other Arizona players attack.

Tschetter In

Lendeborg is bigger than post substitute Will Tschetter, but still plays the smaller position. I would expect Tschetter to cover Koa Peat (or Tobe Awaka). Again, Arizona won’t hunt this matchup, but it would be big for the Wildcats if Peat could take advantage and/or if Awaka can tally some second chance points during these stretches.

When Tschetter replaces either Johnson or Mara, Michigan’s numbers get a lot better on both the offensive and defensive side of the ball. They are best when paired with Johnson, so this is a case where putting fouls on Mara might not be as important as one might think. His on/off numbers are frankly unimpressive.

Depending on how much time Lendeborg spends at the three versus the four, this might be the only time that Arizona can rest Kharchenkov without playing Aristode. Peat will have to spend some time covering Lendeborg, which he is capable of, but will stretch him. The Wildcats could then cover Tschetter, who is really a perimeter player, with Dell’Orso.

As far as the cat and mouse game of matchups, I would give a slight advantage to Michigan. Here’s why: take a look at their rotations for four of their last five games (Howard excluded).

Compare that to Arizona’s charts from last weekend.

Dusty May has normalized short rests and multiple stints for his players. Meanwhile, Tommy Lloyd changes up his lineup much less frequently. Because of Michigan’s optionality, I think May will be able to dictate the flow of the game. For example, Kharchenkov goes to the bench and Michigan goes back to the Lendeborg/Johnson/Mara lineup to force him back in.

This is a underrated strength of this Michigan team. You cannot ever feel like you have gotten comfortable defending them, because at the next dead ball, they are probably going to sub. And the next lineup will probably play a little differently than the current one.

Yaxel at the Four

All of the above combinations cover less than half (933 vs. 1068) of the possessions that Lendeborg spends on the floor. The majority this season have come with him at power forward, in what effectively is a “small-ball” lineup with Lendeborg being the stretch four.

Let’s start with looking at the time with Tschetter in at center first. They have only used this lineup for 45 minutes all season, but that did include six minutes in the Elite Eight game versus Tennessee. If Michigan goes to this lineup, Krivas needs to exit the game, because he has no one to cover.

It would still be a surprise to see the Wolverines play any time without at least one of Johnson or Mara on the floor. Believe it or not, the defensive numbers are slightly better with Johnson, but the offensive numbers are far better with Mara.

I expect that Lendeborg will spend fewer time at the four than normal, just so he doesn’t have to get beaten up inside by Peat or Awaka. But those minutes will provide an interesting choice for Coach Lloyd. Going with the Awaka/Krivas lineup in this situation might cause Michigan some problems. I don’t think Peat going iso on Lendeborg is an advantage for the Cats, but Awaka vs. Lendeborg on the glass is.

But what do you do on the other end though? Notably, Roddy Gayle has been in the game for about 80% of the possessions this year with Lendeborg at the four. Arizona could be sneaky and try Awaka on Gayle while keeping Kharchenkov on Lendeborg. I would even be interested to see Awaka cover Roddy Gayle and let a wing cover Tschetter in some other situations.

While they will change lineups frequently, I think the best combinations for Michigan will be Lendeborg/Tschetter/Johnson and Gayle/Lendeborg/Mara. Arizona will almost definitely close with its starting lineup, but it will be interesting to see how much the Wolverines go back to Lendeborg/Johnson/Mara beyond the start of each half.

I would absolutely love to watch these teams play a seven-game series because the chess match would be incredible.

Other Thoughts

Michigan did show a little bit of 2-3 zone with the wings high versus Michigan State. They didn’t play it particularly well but they are so long that it is imposing. That’s something that has bothered the Wildcats at times this year and I could see it being something that Dusty May sprinkles in to toy with the Cats.

Michigan’s offense typically flows from their secondary fast break, but they do run some defined plays as well. They have some Iverson series sets for side pick-and-roll and they really like going to a Spain slip when they need a bucket. Arizona has three-way switched this action in the past and it is something they should be prepared for.

Final Thought: There is a lot of hype for this game and nothing I have researched leads me to believe this will be anything but one of the best college basketball games ever.

Second Weekend Breakdown

Arizona has won all four of their NCAA Tournament games by double-digits, but Purdue certainly gave them a little bit of a scare, building a seven-point halftime lead. As expected, the Wildcats had Ivan Kharchenkov and Jaden Bradley each take time covering Braden Smith, who hit a lot of shots early, but finished 4-15 from the floor.

Other than a few mistakes, Arizona held the other Boilermaker guards (Cox/Loyer) in check. As a team, Purdue shot 38% on the night. Early on, they got some offensive rebounds and second chance points, but as the game progressed, rebounding ended up about even. The Cats won the turnover battle 11-6 and shot 20-22 from the line, compared to Purdue’s 8-13.

Dunks

Let’s start with a fun one. There were 11 (!) dunks in the Arkansas game and some were crazy.

Downhill

The Wildcats are at their best when they are applying pressure to the defense. That doesn’t mean forcing the issue, but it does mean putting the opponent on their heels by being in attack mode as frequently as possible. Here are two Brayden Burries possessions, with the latter being more representative of Arizona’s winning play.

Ivan Kharchenkov Drive After Drive

Once the offense has gained an initial advantage, it is imperative that the next player either finish the play, or at the very least maintain the advantage. It kills offensive flow to get an advantage and kick out only for that player to stop the ball and let the defense reset. Kharchenkov is the best about making that secondary drive. Also, great screen assist by Jaden Bradley in the first clip.

Mo Krivas Defense

Krivas might be the best defensive center the Wildcats have ever had. He doesn’t do it in as obvious a way as Christian Koloko or Loren Woods did, but I am just loving every moment. His feel and timing of when to be where is unmatched.

Here’s a few things he did against Purdue: contain guards in drop, affect a floater, cause a turnover at the level of the screen, force a long midrange shot, SWITCH ONTO THE FASTEST PLAYER ON THE COURT AND DON’T EVEN LET HIM GET A SHOT OFF, force a post player eight feet off his spot then block his hook shot, cover the point guard and get back to go vertical against a roller, box out a screener on a direct line run to the rim, block said roller’s shot on his following attempt, steal a lob to a 7’4” opponent after making the guard pick up his dribble, STICK WITH ONE OF THE BEST SHOOTERS IN THE COUNTRY ON A GHOST SCREEN, force a post catch at the three-point line and cause a travel, force a shooter inside the line and into a long two by being up-to-touch on a designed handoff looking for a three, show on a pindown then recover to his man on the slip. Whew!

Dell’Orso Dagger

I clipped this play to start at the moment you could see Anthony Dell’Orso was going to hit this three, about 50 feet ahead of time. Right here. The only way to prevent it was Harris to peel to Dell'Orso and let Loyer try to stop Bradley and that was never going to happen.

Final Four Bound

And finally, let’s finish with a couple more plays that will forever be iconic as this 2025-2026 Arizona Wildcats team has officially hung a banner in McKale Center.

All that’s left is to determine which color it will be…

Subscribe now

Next Game: vs Michigan on Saturday, April 4th, 5:49PM MST (or later).

Elite Eight Preview

Purdue finished seventh in the Big Ten regular season and won the tournament championship. The Boilermakers have played 11 ranked opponents, going 7-4. As far as common opponents, they have played Alabama (W), Texas Tech (W), Iowa State (L), Auburn (W), and UCLA (1-1).

(Source: ESPN Analytics)

Purdue Offense

Similar to the Razorbacks, the Boilermakers are stronger on the offensive side of the ball. BPI, KenPom, and EvanMiya all rate Purdue as the best offensive team in the country.

They run a lot of set plays, but almost all to move pieces on the chessboard for Braden Smith to work as the handler in ball screens. Smith’s box creation is 14.2, higher than Christian Anderson, Kingston Flemings, and every other guard the Wildcats have played this year except Darius Acuff (14.4).

For more insight into Purdue’s offense, watch this video:

Similar to how the Wildcats covered Acuff, I think the strategy will be to force Smith to be a scorer. Smith can finish from all three levels and is an elite mid-range shooter but what you don’t want against Purdue is for everyone else to get going.

Other perimeter players’ three-point rates (3p% on 3PAr) are: Cox (37% on 0.64), Loyer (44% on 0.71), Harris (35% on 0.64), and Meyer (36% on 0.58). Even post sub Jack Benter shoots 41% from three at a 3PAr of 0.71. More than half of each of their shots are threes. All of these guys’ jobs are to be ready to shoot it if Smith throws them the ball.

The last two starters, Trey Kaufman-Renn (TKR) and Oscar Cluff are not three-point shooters. For the first time in the tournament, Arizona will face a team that can put significant girth on the floor to match Arizona. However, while Arizona goes to Tobe Awaka, Purdue goes to Benter at 6’6” 215 and essentially plays only one big. They do have Daniel Jacobsen at 7’4” 250, but as of late, his minutes have dwindled to near nonexistent.

The Boilermakers are efficient at shooting, nearly as good as Arizona on the glass, and, with Smith handling the ball most of the time, a very low turnover team. They play at one of the slowest paces in the nation, about 62 possessions per game.1

Purdue does not get to the free throw line very well, which could help Arizona keep its posts on the floor. If the game happens to be officiated tightly, Arizona has the advantage of having three big men compared to Purdue’s two.

Matchups

Most likely Jaden Bradley will start on Smith. However, when Bradley is out, and maybe even some of the time he is in, I would consider covering him with Kharchenkov. While I think Bradley may be a little better at getting over the screen, Kharchenkov’s size might be more to think about in rear-view pursuit should Smith try to beat the Wildcats pulling up for jumpers.

By far, Anthony Dell’Orso’s best matchup is Gicarri Harris, who is typically the first guard sub, replacing CJ Cox. That seems to typically happen at the 12-minute timeout so we will see if Coach Lloyd delays his first guard rotation to get that matchup.

Purdue does not attempt a ton at the rim and should not have their normal level of success there, as the Wildcat posts are strong deterrents. TKR may do more damage in the short roll, something I pointed out as a potential spot to attack after ASU had some success in their first matchup.

However, unlike Massamba Diop attacking Krivas’s drop coverage center-on-center, TKR plays the majority of his time at power forward. He will be far less successful if Krivas stays on Cluff, who will not be able to draw him away from protecting the rim.

For that reason, I expect the best offensive lineups that Purdue can put on the floor to include Benter instead of Cluff. Arizona will have to decide if they are better off matching Krivas’s rest with Cluff’s. Especially if Kharchenkov covered Smith, that would make the Cats very switchable. I wouldn’t even mind Krivas switching onto Smith under ten on the shot clock.

In general, I think it will be important for the Wildcats to switch up some coverages and give Purdue different looks. The Boilermakers are good enough that they can figure defenses out if a team lets them.

(Source: Basketball Reference and CBB Analytics)

Purdue Defense

Defensively, the Boilermakers are small and unathletic, especially compared to Arkansas. However, they play very hard, which can make up for a lot. They do not generate a ton of turnovers (or score much in transition), but instead stay disciplined and try to force opponents into low-value shots.

Loyer may cover Burries, trying to generate cross-matches in transition. If that were the case, I would leave Burries on Loyer on the other end. There’s no real size advantage for Loyer, who plays as Purdue’s small forward, despite a guard body. Smith probably has to cover Bradley, who needs to attack him the same way he did Acuff, if for no other reason than to make him work.

The question will be: how does Purdue cover the posts of Arizona, especially with Benter on the floor? It asks a lot of TKR and Cluff to hold down that end, much less without the other.

Arizona will try to go inside of course, but I think it is also important that Koa Peat attacks the rim from catches in the mid-post. If TKR were to get into foul trouble, Purdue would have a much tougher time on both ends of the floor.

Subscribe now

Next Game: vs Purdue on Saturday, March 28th, 5:49PM MST.

Sweet Sixteen Preview

Arkansas finished second in the SEC regular season and won the tournament championship. The Razorbacks have played 12 ranked opponents, going 5-7. As far as common opponents, they have played Texas Tech (W), Houston (L), Auburn (1-1), Alabama (L), and Florida (L).

(Source: ESPN Analytics)

BPI, KenPom, and EvanMiya rate Arkansas between the 15th and 17th best team in the country. They have an electric offensive, led by First Team All-American point guard Darius Acuff. They are good to great at each of the four factors, better in shooting and taking care of the ball than the Wildcats, but are not quite as strong at offensive rebounding or getting to the foul line.

Arizona has faced two other First Team All-Americans already this year. AJ Dybantsa scored 24 points on 6-24 shooting and 35 points on 13-28 shooting. JT Toppin scored 31 points on 13-22 shooting. If that pattern holds, expect Acuff to get his, but maybe not in the most efficient manner.

Defensively, they are not nearly as strong, although still better than the Utah State team that just gave the Cats some trouble. The main issue is that their guards, Acuff especially, are not strong on that side of the ball. They do not cause many turnovers nor hold teams to a good percentage and they give up a decent number of rebounds because their big men are out of position helping their guards.

All signs point to Nick Pringle being back after missing the first weekend with a hamstring injury. That gives them another body to throw at the posts alongside Trevon Brazile and Malique Ewin (6’10” 220). Even with Pringle, the Razorbacks will likely only play seven players with DJ Wagner (6’4” 190) being the last.

Arizona still has a size advantage while Arkansas is one of the highest pace teams in the country. They average the most fast break points per game and turn the ball over on the lowest percentage of possessions of any team in D1.

The Razorbacks have shot 38.7% from three, also near the top in the nation. But they don’t shoot a ton of them, less than five more per game than the Wildcats. Their 3PAr is 13th percentile in the country. Arizona’s is 1st percentile.

(Source: Basketball Reference and CBB Analytics)

First Weekend Breakdown

After demolishing LIU, there was a lot of chatter about how poorly Arizona played in the second round against Utah State, including Charles Barkley saying at halftime that they played their worst half of the year, even though they led by nine.

The Cats never trailed.1 By ESPN’s win probability model, their lowest WP was 82.2%, which, believe it or not, was at the opening tip. The lowest in the second half was 82.7% with 6:14 remaining and a 58-54 lead. And this was not against a low-major LIU squad; Utah State is a very good team.

Here are major topics we hit in the game preview:

• Utah State’s eFG% is elite, 57.2% (96th percentile). Arizona held Utah State to 45.3% eFG% and shot a better number themselves.

• Utah State is bad about putting opponents to the foul line (.29 FTr). Arizona got to the line at a FTr of .70.

• Utah State turns teams over 20.8% of possessions (95th percentile). Arizona turned the ball over on 17.3% of possessions. The target I suggested was 10.8 turnovers, their season average. The Wildcats had 11.

• Utah State is a poor defensive rebounding team at 29.5% opponent ORB%. Arizona grabbed 55% of their own misses.

So overall, I saw a pretty good basketball game from a team I still think is playing like the best in the country. Let’s rip through some other things I saw:

Pressbreak

Alright, we can hit the negatives too. Unfortunately, like we discussed after the losses, as amazing as this team is, they are not immune to the Rubber Band Effect. They get up in games and then let off the gas.

In fact, the Aggies had already cut the lead from 18 to 8 before they even started to press. Here is the list of Arizona possessions in that timeframe:

Peat turnover, Peat missed layup, Burries turnover, Dell’Orso missed three, Burries made two FTs, Awaka made one of two FTs, Dell’Orso missed three, Awaka made one of two FTs.

That is four points in eight possessions.2 And again, that is before they struggled with the press. Here are the first four press possessions: two turnovers, one lucky foul, and one set started with 15 on the shot clock.

The Wildcats’ positioning was rough against this 2-2-1 press, as they appeared to set up in a 2-2-1 as well. With Krivas up the floor but not wide, there was a lot of pressure on the second line of Cats to get open.

Utah State coach Jerrod Calhoun caught some flack for pulling the press a few minutes later. But by the fifth and sixth possessions, Arizona had done a better job flashing someone to the middle to make the second line of the Aggies’ D make a decision to take away that pass or go to trap.

One reason for the Rubber Band Effect is the tendency of leading teams to play passively. There is a time in the game where it is more valuable to run clock than to optimize offense on a possession. That time is not more than a couple of minutes left in the game, yet this Arizona team has a habit of slowing things down before that. I loved seeing Jaden Bradley attack the rim for the and-one. If a team is going to press, you have to make them pay.

Bench Rotation

Standard warning: single game plus-minus is incredibly noisy. Tobe Awaka was -13 in this game and Anthony Dell’Orso was -11.

Awaka played only 13 minutes, his fewest this season. Dwayne Aristode played only 3 minutes.

Coach Lloyd is tightening the rotation, which is more or less down to seven guys. The starters played 165/200 minutes and starter-only minutes accounted for nearly half the game (19:32).

Mo Krivas Passing

I was asked last week who my favorite player on this Arizona team was and after my mind spun for a moment over a really awesome all-around roster, I answered Ivan Kharchenkov, who I have written about many times this year.

Upon reflection, that is just not correct. Three months ago, I wrote that Krivas was the least replaceable player on this team.3 And until about a month ago, he remained hidden from the national discourse or from draft boards, despite my calls for him to be national defensive player of the year starting in December.

But the secret is out. I am now of the opinion that Krivas is more likely than not to be drafted in the first round of this year’s NBA draft. And if he keeps showing off additional skills like these passes, that stock is going to keep rising.

Burries End of Half Clock Awareness

Some good and some bad here. First, I’m a sucker for the walk-the-dog so here is Brayden Burries helping to waste eight seconds of clock after the LIU basket, bringing the shot clock and game clock differential down to two seconds.

But just like we discussed last week, Burries again went too early in this possession giving up the advantage he had just created and giving LIU the ball back with eight seconds remaining.

Luckily, Koa Peat stopped the transition with what I think was the first charge taken by a post this season.

Fouls to Give

The end of the half versus Utah State was not great either. Anthony Dell’Orso used Arizona’s foul to give with 9.6 seconds left, 40 feet away from the basket. He then got backcut for a layup on the ensuing inbounds.

That is both way too early and way too far away to give that foul. The idea would be for the offense to run the clock down and then when they start to attack, give the foul. That would put them in a tougher situation, taking the ball out of bounds (on the baseline hopefully) with say 3-4 seconds left.

The art of giving fouls was a popular topic this week. For those who watched the end of the St. John’s / Kansas game, Darryn Peterson made two free throws to tie the game with 14.1 seconds left and 2 team fouls. Kansas proceeded to give fouls at 13.1, 11.3, 6.8, and 3.9, all of which occurred in the backcourt. Dylan Darling then drove in and laid the ball in to win the game.

My thoughts:

• Kansas is tied. Because of this, I would not give more than one foul because it puts personal fouls and team fouls on your team that could matter in overtime.

• When a player gives a foul, I much prefer they get in on the ball and separate it from the ball handler. Maybe the official doesn’t call a foul. But don’t just go tap the ball handler on the back.

• Similar to Arizona, try to run some clock. The first two fouls took all of 2.8 seconds off.

• Don’t go all the way to six team fouls, because now the defense is scared to foul. Plus, you might actually accidentally foul and send your opponent to the line for the bonus.

In another game, Florida tried to give a foul up 2 with 8.9 seconds left, but failed to do so leading to a game-winning open three for Alvaro Folgueiras.4 The thought process: a foul takes a regulation loss out of the equation. Even if Iowa makes two free throws, Florida gets the ball back tied with a chance to win it. Worst case scenario is overtime.

Some are skeptical, but Florida Coach, Todd Golden5 has long been a follower of some of these analytics-backed strategies. While at San Francisco, his teams would frequently foul at the end of the first half when the shot clock was off so his team could get another possession. Give some thought to that one.

Floppy!

Another item we hit last week was Arizona’s increased use of pindowns. Well it wasn’t on a sideline out-of-bounds (SLOB) but rather an after-time-out (ATO), but the Wildcats went full floppy for the first time this season.

Appreciate SVG using the telestrator to show Burries screening for Kharchenkov, followed by both players coming off pindowns. Also, for all the point guards, just a masterful job by Jaden Bradley to lean towards the left side to drag his man a step away before the throw back to his right which led to Burries nailing a jumper on the curl.

First Half Challenges

Team Lloyd is now 6-0 on the season on challenges after overturning an out-of-bounds call with 6:05 remaining in the first half versus LIU.

However, this triggered a discussion between announcers Kevin Harlen, Stan Van Gundy, and Robbie Hummel about whether or not they would ever challenge in the first half. All these guys know more basketball than I do, but I think especially SVG may not recognize the significant differences between the college challenge system and the NBA system he is more familiar with.

1. Van Gundy mentioned that NBA teams like to hold challenges until the end of the game. This is partially true. Most challenges occur near the end of regulation, and especially in the last minute.

   

   Above are all the challenges (2,878) made by NBA coaches in the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 regular seasons. But like in college, teams get a second challenge if they get the first correct. So, what we are really interested in here is the timing of the first challenge.

   

   Of the first challenges by a team in a game, 37.4% were used in the first half (911 / 2436). So to say NBA coaches all hold their challenges until the end of the game is not accurate.

2. For reasons to be explained later6, there are more challenges used towards the end of each respective quarter than the beginning of the next quarter. Also, there are increases in the number of challenges at the end of the third quarter and before the 3:00 mark in the fourth quarter. Why?
   
   NBA rules allow teams to carry only four timeouts into the fourth quarter and only two timeouts into the last 3:00. Because of this, there are situations where teams are about to forfeit a timeout and are more willing to risk a challenge right before these deadlines.
   
   But college basketball’s timeout forfeiture happens only once, at the end of the first half. Therefore, coaches who have not yet used a timeout should similarly be more inclined to challenge near the end of the first half.

3. This is the biggest difference: you cannot challenge most fouls in college basketball.7 Almost every challenge I have witnessed this year has been an out-of-bounds call. Houston lost a challenge trying to reverse a basket interference call in the Big 12 tournament and I believe I witnessed one restricted arc challenge earlier in the year, but that is all that I can remember.
   
   Put simply, that means there is much less of a chance you will need that challenge later in the game. Arizona has now used 6 challenges in 36 games.

4. I wrote about NBA challenge strategy last fall. In addition to the likelihood of winning a challenge, teams also take into account the value of winning said challenge. A team could potentially get a play that was originally called an and-one three pointer overturned into a leg-kick offensive foul. That challenge win is worth about 3.8 points.
   
   But an out-of-bounds call is almost always worth the value of one possession (~1.0 points). College teams don’t need to do as much arithmetic because, as discussed above, almost every challenge is an out-of-bounds call.8

And of course, two days later, another challengeable situation presented itself, this time only three minutes into the game.

Should Arizona have challenged this call? Given what we are able to see at home, yes.

There was clear video evidence that the ball last touched Adlan Elamin. But I recognize that what Liam Lloyd is able to see on his tablet in the 10-20 seconds he’s afforded to make a decision, might not be as certain. However, if you rewatch the Arizona bench, nearly everyone close to the play already knew who the ball was off of.

Whether SVG could actually read Coach Lloyd’s lips across the floor or not, he asserted that Coach Lloyd’s decision not to challenge had more to do with the timing in the game than with his belief he could overturn the call. If that’s the case, I think that’s a bad way to go about it.

It’s nice to be undefeated in your challenge record. But if you never get to a situation where you wish you could challenge but have already used all your challenges, or to a situation where you wished you could take a timeout that you lost in a challenge, then you are not challenging enough.

For those on timeout watch, Arizona forfeited timeouts at the half in both games this weekend, the 14th and 15th occurrences this year.

Return of the BLOB

Arizona had 11 baseline out-of-bounds plays vs Utah State, their most of the season. Enjoy!

Coaching Situation and State of College Hoops

1. Coach Lloyd is a very good college basketball coach. Many programs would love to have him as their head coach. So when his name comes up in rumors about jobs like North Carolina or Kansas, the latter of which is not even open, it should not come as a surprise.9

2. Arizona is a great basketball program. But it is neither a blue blood nor is it in one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country. Arizona is a Tier Two basketball program and the strongest on the west coast.10

   1. Chris’s Tier One (alphabetical): Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina

      1. Tier One Emeritus11: Indiana, UCLA

   2. Chris’s Tier Two (alphabetical)12: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Louisville, Michigan State, Villanova

3. Of the two factors: brand vs. financial resources, it is clear that the importance is shifting towards the latter. What equilibrium that will find in the long run is debatable with NCAA rules shifting yearly. If a true salary cap were implemented, the power would shift back towards the blue bloods.

4. Matt Brown of Extra Points recently broke down the 2024-2025 budgets of men’s basketball programs.13 See Appendix for school-by-school breakdown.

   1. All Big Ten programs are in the top 40.14

   2. All SEC teams are in the top 50, including 5 of the top 10.15

   3. All ACC teams are in the top 45, although there is data for less than half of the programs.

   4. All Big 12 teams are in the top 55.16

   5. Connecticut ranks 5th, but there is no data for any other Big East school.

   6. Programs in the new PAC-9 rank no higher than 53rd, although there is no data for Gonzaga, the best basketball school.

   7. No other conference has a program above 47th (Memphis from the AAC)

5. As expected, the Big 10 and SEC dominate. Of the teams I have in my top tiers, that is a positive sign for Kentucky, Florida, and Michigan State, plus a potential revival for Indiana and UCLA.

6. The ACC and Big 12 are a step below. But it is undeniable that the Big 12 is the stronger basketball conference at the moment. It is also the stronger football conference currently, which may have future financial implications.

7. Arizona was third in spending, exceeding both UNC and Kansas. This came as a bit of a shock to me but current Athletic Director Desireé Reed-Francois, has stated that Arizona “will be aggressive” to support programs. This has included recent naming rights deals for Arizona Stadium and McKale Center and I would expect a jersey patch deal to be announced soon.

   1. All this is to say, are we sure that North Carolina (15) or Kansas (11) is a better job than Arizona today? Neither is in a better conference than Arizona, neither has had more success over the past four years than Arizona17, and neither is in a better financial situation than Arizona.

   2. Paying a coach’s buyout is more interesting than ever. Even if these programs waited until after the April 15th date that effectively rolls the season over to the next year, they would be paying Arizona $9,000,000 to get Coach Lloyd out of his contract. That is more than half of UNC’s annual budget and nearly half of Kansas’s.

      1. Traditionally, this would come from a willing donor. But said willing donor is also likely one of the funders of the NIL pool. There’s a robbing Peter to pay Paul element here. As part of a commitment to move to a new school, a good coach wants money for himself, money for his assistants, and now money for his players, not to mention that the facilities improvement “keeping up with the Jones’s” obligation has not gone away.

8. I hope Coach Lloyd stays at Arizona for a long time. If he chooses to leave because he was once a 7-year-old kid that watched Michael Jordan hit a jumper to win a National Championship and thought maybe one day I’ll be the new Dean Smith, I wouldn’t blame him. But that’s what he would be leaving for, the nostalgia.

Hopefully, next week there is a 7-year-old somewhere that is watching the Wildcats hoist a trophy and imagining being Tommy Lloyd at Arizona someday. Bear Down. Go Cats!

Subscribe now

Appendix

Next Game: vs Arkansas on Thursday, March 26th, 6:45PM MST.

Round of 32 Preview

Utah State won both the regular season and tournament championship of the Mountain West Conference, a traditional multi-bid league that failed to produce an at-large selection this season.

The Aggies played two NCAA Tournament teams in their non-conference schedule, beating VCU and losing to South Florida. Their only common opponent with the Wildcats was San Diego State, who they defeated three times.

Utah State is closer to Arizona statistically than LIU was. They are a talented offensive team that is much less likely to get completely shut down. Their effective field goal percentage is elite, 96th percentile in the country.

Defensively, they are not quite as strong. Opponents have good shooting numbers and have gotten to the line frequently. Certainly the latter is something the Wildcats intend to take advantage of.

Instead, they rely on generating turnovers, which they have done at a high clip (95th percentile). Some of their offensive prowess is a knock-on effect from this as well, with their fast break points ranking similarly high despite being an average pace team overall.

Arizona has averaged 10.8 turnovers per game and a key factor will be their ability to stay near or under that number.

Arizona is huge but Utah State is at least in the same universe size-wise. Interestingly, the Aggies are a good (77th percentile) offensive rebounding team but a poor (29th percentile) defensive rebounding team. As always, the Wildcats will look to pound the glass for second-chance points.

In terms of creating variance as an underdog, Utah State shoots a fairly average number of threes per game (23.4 vs. Arizona’s 16.2) but at a worse percentage than the Cats (34.6 vs. 36.3).1 They are a very disciplined group as far as avoiding midrange shots and have been extremely efficient at the rim. We will see if they can do so facing Krivas and Co.

(Source: Basketball Reference and CBB Analytics)

Subscribe now

Next Game: vs Utah State on Sunday, March 22nd, 4:50PM MST.

NCAA Tournament

I was born less than three months after Lute Olson and Sean Elliott took Arizona to its first Final Four in 1988, so I can only imagine what that must have felt like. But I do remember 1994, 1997, and 2001, each better than the last.

I also remember a 1993 tournament that was over before it felt like it even started, a 1998 destiny unfulfilled, and another 1-seed gone to waste in 2000.

By the time Arizona reached the final in Minneapolis, I understood that a deep tournament run wasn’t something that came around every year. While I was disappointed the Cats didn’t hoist the trophy, I was grateful for that Final Four. In my mind, that was something that I would only get to enjoy every 3-6 years.1

So when I sat in the Duck Pond in 2003, watching Kansas fans celebrate around me, I wasn’t despondent because I knew that’s how it went sometimes. I can’t say the same about 2005, which remains the worst sports loss of my life to this day.

And then there were some dark years.2 8-seed, 8-seed, 10-seed, 12-seed, missed tournament (2010). I had never experienced an Arizona-less bracket until I was old enough to drink.

2011 brought renewed hope and 2014 the best Wildcat team of my adult life so far. 2015 felt like the Avengers: Endgame answer to Infinity War, right up until it didn’t.3

And honestly, that’s when I started to detach somewhat. Sure, I thought that the 2017 team had a chance and the Tommy Lloyd teams of the past four years could have found a way to make a run. But there wasn’t one that I really believed was going to do it.

Who could blame me? There’s a whole lot of heartbreak to sort through in the last 25 years.

None of that is fair to put on this year’s group. If they lose on Friday to LIU, it will still have been an incredible feat to finish 32-3, especially considering the gauntlet of a schedule they have navigated. The Big 12 regular and tournament championships are theirs forever.

Memories of a gutsy, grueling win at Houston, or of one of the highest level college finishes I’ve ever seen against Iowa State will stick with me. And those are only two of Arizona’s twelve ranked wins on the season.

Even for a 1-seed, the path to a Final Four is not ever an easy one. By the round of 16, everyone left is good and on the right (or wrong) day, everyone could win or lose. Even the most generous prediction models give the Wildcats about a coin-flip chance of making it to Indy.

When Selection Sunday concludes every year, a common question is “Seeing the bracket, what scares you?” It’s a pretty reasonable question for a fanbase that has learned to keep their guard up.

This year it could be a Purdue or Arkansas team that is peaking at the right time or a potential master/pupil matchup with Gonzaga. It definitely could be ghosts of tournaments past (2000/2014/2015).

But it wasn’t until I sat down to write this article, on the eve of yet another NCAA Tournament, that I was willing to admit to myself that I am feeling pretty scared. Not of any of the teams in the path. I am convinced by this point that Arizona is the best team in the country.

I’m scared because, for the first time in a long time, this team has me believing.

Round of 64 Preview

LIU dominated the Northeast Conference this year, winning the regular season title by three games with a record of 15-3. They played two high-major teams that are in the NCAA Tournament, losing at Illinois by 40 and at Georgia by 15. The only other tournament team they played was Lehigh, who they beat by five.

Despite a much weaker schedule, LIU is worse in seven of the eight factors.4 (source: ESPN Analytics)

This is a dream draw for the Wildcats as LIU shoots nearly as few three-pointers as Arizona (16.5 per game vs 16.3) at nearly the exact same percentage (36%). The Sharks have succeeded playing a game very similar to the Cats but with far less size.

LIU will be giving up an average of 30 pounds at each starting lineup spot, which doesn’t even consider the 255 that Tobe Awaka brings off the bench. The Wildcats’ offensive rebounding and ability to get to the free throw line are expected to be major factors in this matchup.

The Wildcats have sneakily become a fast team, playing in the 90th percentile of pace on the season while the Sharks have played right at the median on the year but in the 15th percentile in their last five games. This is a dilemma for LIU as almost 20% of their points come from fast breaks (97th percentile).

Since I think their chances of getting out and pestering the Arizona guards is low, I fully expect them to try to slow it down and reduce possessions. Conversely, the Cats should be looking to apply pressure as LIU turns the ball over frequently (85th percentile turnover rate).

The game plan for the upset is pretty well understood. As other coaches suggest (while heavily touting the Wildcats as tournament favorites), “Let them take and make as many 3s as possible.” Easier said than done as anyone who has faced Arizona this season would tell you.

(Source: Basketball Reference and CBB Analytics)

Big 12 Tournament Notes

Elite Competition

The Big 12 had six teams that were head and shoulders above the rest this season but in addition to Arizona, Houston and Iowa State are the cream of the crop.5 When Arizona’s offensive rating gets discussed, I think it’s good to remember that four of those games came against the Cougar and Cyclone defenses that are college basketball S-Tier.

ASU excluded, I tend to cheer for conference rivals when it comes to the tournament. It had been a while since the Pac-12 had three legitimate contenders for the crown and I’m hoping all three of these teams are playing into April. As far as my bracket picks, I have both making the Elite Eight, but only one advancing.6

Evolving Plays

As the season goes along, the playbook continues to grow. Arizona’s offense and inbounds (discussed below) have certainly done so but defensively this team has been rock solid in their man-to-man defense all year. While there may have been some minor adjustments in things like ball-screen coverage, Arizona has opted to stick with what is working for the most part.

But it was neat to see Arizona reintroduce their three-quarter court trap after an extended absence. My last record of its use was in the 12th game of the year versus Bethune-Cookman.

Even if they don’t plan on bringing it out in any major way in the NCAA Tournament, it just gives an opponent that watched the last few games of film another thing to have to think about in prepping their scouting report.

Free Throw Hitch

Okay, here’s a weird one. Something much more frequent that I would definitely want to note on a scouting report is to not fall into the paint when Koa Peat is at the line.

Peat has drawn numerous free throw violations this year.7 And as a 60% free throw shooter, it can be really nice to get multiple chances.

I don’t think Peat is intentionally hitching, which is illegal (see below), but the frequency with which he is drawing violations (officials with a fist held out in the clips) is increasing, including three of the last six games.

One of the reasons I don’t think he is purposely hitching is that this form goes back to at least December, when his unusual mechanics caught their first victim, Dwayne Aristode.

Closing Halves

Thanks to Brayden Burries coming alive in the final few minutes, Arizona closed the first half of their game against Houston on a 11-3 run that culminated in Houston making an ill-advised challenge on a basket interference call with 3 seconds left that cost them their second timeout of the game.8

However, Arizona’s previous two first halves didn’t end on such a high note. Against UCF, Burries took a three-pointer with more time left than would be ideal. Neither he nor any other Wildcat got back on defense on the shot, leading to a breakout and-one.

Even that was better than their atrocious close against Iowa State. I have pointed out Arizona’s use of (or lack of) the two-for-one to end halves, so was pleasantly surprised to see Jaden Bradley in attack mode with 45 seconds left. But with two Cats ending up on the floor, Milan Momcilovic ended up with a transition three-pointer.

This isn’t too bad considering the Wildcats got the ball back for what should have been the last possession. Coach Lloyd called his first half timeout and then chaos ensued.

Just like the start of the game, Arizona seemed caught off guard when Iowa State brought two to the ball to trap, despite this being their preferred defense. The Wildcats using their typical sideline out-of-bounds (SLOB) handoff was a rough call as there is never a better time to trap than when the offensive team will likely not take advantage of breaking it as they are holding the ball for the last shot.9

Tobe Awaka had a chance to save a weak pass but got alligator arms, leading to another Momcilovic three in transition, followed by an Anthony Dell’Orso travel with 2.8 seconds left. Arizona mentally checked out at this point and rather than getting up to pressure, allowed Momcilovic an easy path up the floor into a third three.

I don’t think I have ever seen a team go two-for-one and lose out 9-0 on it. While the Wildcats were not harmed in the end by these first half closes, it’s something to improve moving forward.

Timeout Watch

Coach Lloyd said in the postgame that the above mentioned timeout put the Wildcats in a bad spot.10 As we have discussed previously, it has been the tendency of this team to not take their first timeout until one of the last possessions of the half.

12 of Arizona’s 21 use-it-or-lose-it (UIOLI) timeouts have occurred with under a minute to go. The 8 timeouts followed by a Wildcat offensive possession have resulted in a total of only 5 Arizona points (0.63 PPP).

Coach Lloyd mentioned that he and staff emphasize a culture of FIO (Figure It Out). The Wildcats have done that many times this season and I think it plays into why Arizona even had their UIOLI timeout remaining after they trailed Iowa State 14-2 in this game.

But if you believe in your team to FIO, maybe the late first half timeout advantages the defense more than the offense. While I am not a fan of forfeiting a timeout, I’m also not a fan of using one just so you can say you didn’t let it go to waste.

Speaking of timeouts, Arizona used all of its timeouts for only the fourth time all year in the finale vs Houston. The only other occurrences: the losses to Kansas and Texas Tech, and the win at BYU.

Inbounds

As you know, I have an obsession with inbounds plays. I think it is because coaches have relatively low impact on the play on the floor once the ball is live in basketball.11

But inbounds plays are static and more akin to a football offensive coordinator making a play call. This means it is one area coaches can have a relatively high impact. A great inbounds play that scores a basket can make a coach feel they had a real influence, at least on a fraction of the points gained.

As I mentioned above, I thought the SLOB at the end of the half versus Iowa State was dangerous from the start. However, in the 43 clips I’ve got from this year, they nearly all start with that same action of a screen away at the elbows then an option for a hand off back to the inbounder. There is a reason there isn’t an Utter Hoops SLOB video for this season yet.12

However, I did want to point out that Arizona has recently added a slight adjustment, allowing the wings to come off of pindowns after the initial action which I think is a nice addition. If and when this evolves to floppy and Dell’Orso turns back to come off the double screen to the inbounds side just in time to nail a big three, it will make all 43 of those handoffs into drag screens worth it.

Sometimes though, vanilla is the best. And I would say most of Arizona’s BLOB plays are pretty vanilla as well. Nothing is more vanilla than the elementary school screens across which I only started to see two weeks ago, but worked like a charm here versus Colorado.

And last but not least, a tip of the cap to Iowa State’s TJ Otzelberger. Here is one of their first half inbounds, where the Wildcats easily rematch after the ball comes in.

Point guard Tamin Lipsey is the inbounder here, as he was for every other inbound right up until the end of the game. But with 1:19 left, the Cyclones switched to have Momcilovic be the trigger man.

Because Arizona covers the inbounds with Krivas, he’s the primary cover as Momcilovic sprints to the arc immediately after release of the ball. A minor adjustment but so valuable at this crucial time in the game. Give Coach Otz a fraction of a point there or at least an imaginary assist.

Subscribe now

Next Game: vs Long Island on Friday, March 20th, 10:35AM MST.

For what it’s worth, my preference would be to axe four teams and go back to a 64-team bracket. But in a world where there are 361 teams1 in Division I, plus more money to be made, I assume that expansion of some kind is inevitable.

The primary goal of the NCAA Tournament is to crown a national champion. I do not think any expansion helps to achieve this goal. Not to mention, most of the games that would come out of an expansion would be not very entertaining, as noted by Kevin Sweeney of Sports Illustrated.

Secondary goals, like rewarding mid- and low-major schools for great seasons, could be improved. However, the 76-team expansion actually makes this worse.

My biggest gripe with the current system is that conference tournament champions have to play in against one another for a 16-seed. They have all earned their chance at a Goliath, plus that’s what the first weekend of the tournament is all about anyway. That’s why people watch!

To review, the core of my proposal is this:

1. All conference tournament champions are slotted into the round of 64.

2. All conference regular season champions that did not win their conference tournament receive automatic bids.

3. A complementary number of at-large teams make up the rest of the field.

4. All teams from steps 3 and 4 play in opening round games with the winner reaching the round of 64.

Using WAB as the deciding factor of the additional at-large teams, the bracket looks like this:

Black = teams that are slotted into the same spots as the real-life bracket2
Green = teams that had to be shifted a seed-line to make space for all conference tournament winners in round of 64
Orange = first four out from real-life bracket
Blue = conference regular season champions that were not conference tournament champions
Purple = new at-large teams using WAB

Top Benefits

• Greater reward for conference tournament champions.

• More games pitting mid- and low-major teams versus high-major teams.

There would definitely be some obstacles in implementation. I walked through some in my previous article. But if expansion is indeed inevitable, I would much prefer a creative solution to what I’ve seen proposed elsewhere.

Hope you enjoyed!

Subscribe now

Today, I’m excited to share a tool I’ve been building to provide extra context to live college basketball games just in time for the postseason.

When I am watching basketball games, I tend to have a couple of windows open on my laptop. However, I have found that most gamecasts1 are designed primarily for viewing box scores and omit additional information that I would like to see conveyed.

So, I set out to build a second-screen experience that offers a complementary perspective, one that goes beyond traditional statistics and typical announcer commentary. The design aims to reflect the mindset of a coaching staff, highlighting key considerations that influence in-game decisions. With that in mind, I’m calling it Coach’s Gamecast.

Lineups

From a coaching perspective, my most immediate consideration is the lineup currently on the floor. The lineup section of the app allows for quick comparison of matchups across teams.2

Each team’s lineup is sorted by size3, which provides a reference of expected defensive coverages. Users can also identify cross-matches (e.g., if Florida’s Will Richard is covering Houston’s Emanuel Sharp, but Sharp is covering Alijah Martin on the other end).

From there, the focus expands to player roles. On the offensive side specifically, additional questions arise: Does my lineup have enough creators (see box creation, BxCr) and possession finishers (see usage percentage, USG%)?

Does my lineup have adequate shooters to provide spacing? See three-point attempt rate (3PAr)4 and three-point shooting percentage (3FG%).

Especially at the end of games, I want to know the free throw shooting percentages (FT%) of the players on the floor as well.

Of course, the opposing team is making the same assessments, so their lineup requires equal attention. Using the dimensions outlined above, I aim to understand how their group compares, where each lineup holds advantages, where it is vulnerable, and how those strengths and weaknesses interact.

Are they playing a small-ball lineup against my backup center who cannot effectively punish it? What lineup did they go to when my best player left the floor? Identifying these moments is critical to understanding where tactical edges can be created or lost.

Rotations

A draft plan of substitutions is typically sketched out in advance. This pregame planning helps address lineup balance by allowing coaches to evaluate projected combinations ahead of time. From there, the plan can be adjusted as matchup issues emerge or as the flow of the game dictates.

The Coach’s Gamecast rotations section allows users to observe the substitution patterns of each team, while also quickly viewing minutes played, game plus/minus (+/-), and personal fouls to the left of the player’s name.

Personal fouls are often the biggest disruptor of rotation plans. If a starter picks up a third foul midway through the first half, carefully constructed substitution patterns may need to be abandoned altogether.

Throughout the game, coaches are also thinking ahead to the final minutes. Which five players are best suited to close, and how do I ensure they’re available and fresh?

If players have fouled out or are exhausted when it matters most, at least part of that responsibility falls on the coach. The challenge is to exploit matchups and avoid ever putting an unbalanced lineup on the floor, while also ensuring that key players receive adequate rest.

Finally, a coach might rarely have a precise sense of a player’s box score production in real time, but they likely do have a strong feel for how the team performs when that player is on the floor. If a player checks in for a four-minute stint and the team surrenders an eight-point lead, that stands out. The same is true for a player who brings energy off the bench and sparks a quick 6–0 run.

Coach’s Gamecast tracks each player’s plus/minus by stint to provide a proxy of this intuitive estimation. Between the two rotation charts is a graph of win probability by game time, another way to examine the flow of the game at each moment.

Substitutions and Rewind Mode

The bottom section of the app contains the substitution logs.

Clicking a substitution will put Coach’s Gamecast into “rewind mode,” displaying the lineups at that point in the game, the time and score at the beginning and end of that interval, and added visual cues to the charts and tables to highlight the timeframe that is being displayed.

This feature helps users review key stretches and analyze the matchups of every lineup that appeared.

Timeouts and Team Fouls

College timeout rules are not as complicated as those in the NBA, but they are still essential to the game state. I would like to add challenges to this section, but unfortunately have not found an API with that data included yet.5

Coaches and players also need to be aware of the team foul situation, specifically whether either team is in or approaching the bonus. Fouls to give (FTG) are listed in the header row of the timeouts section.

Four Factors

Finally, if you want a quick look at where a game was won and lost, take a look at the four factors table. Points-per-possession (PPP) gives a tempo-free evaluation of each team’s scoring. The subsequent metrics describe shooting, rebounding, turnovers, and free throw rate: the four areas you are most likely to hear a coach refer to when evaluating their team’s performance.

How to Use

1. Select a game from the scoreboard or team schedule pages.

2. Click any substitution to view previous lineups.

3. Read tooltips (hover) to learn more.

Notes

• Data reliability depends on ESPN’s APIs.

• Current APIs include substitutions for games from the 2024-2025 season onward.

• Coach’s Gamecast currently refreshes data every 30 seconds for live games.

• I prefer the desktop version so I can see all the elements simultaneously, but I have worked to optimize the mobile UI as well so I can still use the app while I am at games in person.

Feedback

What have I missed that would make this tool even better?

Please provide feature requests or report issues whenever possible. And please do share with anyone else that you think might be interested.

Thanks, hope you enjoy!

Subscribe now

How Good Are These Cats?

While we all know that the memory of this team will depend greatly on the next month, this season has just been an amazing ride. It is hard to compare era to era in college basketball, as things have changed so much over the last forty years, but I think you could make the argument that this is the best Wildcat regular season ever.2

That doesn’t necessarily mean they are the best team. The fully healthy 2013-2014 Cats were the most recent group with a case for that honor and many of the Lute Olson coached teams included players that would have been long gone to the NBA in today’s day and age.3

This will be Arizona’s eighth time as a 1-seed in the NCAA Tournament and the second under Tommy Lloyd (2021-2022). Let’s take a look at those seasons and see how they compare.

1987-1988 Record: 28-2

Wins: #3 Syracuse (Neutral), #3 Iowa (Away), #9 Michigan (N), #9 Duke (Home), #13 Illinois (H)

Losses: New Mexico (A), Stanford (A)

1988-1989 Record: 24-3

Wins: #9 Duke (N), #9 UNLV (H), #12 Stanford (N), #17 Temple (N), #19 Stanford (H)

Losses: #4 UNLV (N), #5 Oklahoma (A), #10 North Carolina (N)

1997-1998 Record: 27-4

Wins: #4 Stanford (A), #8 Kentucky (N), #8 Stanford (H), #9 UCLA (H), #15 New Mexico (H)

Losses: #2 Kansas (N), #3 Duke (N), #17 Florida State (A), USC (A)

1999-2000 Record: 26-6

Wins: #1 Stanford (A), #2 Stanford (H), #4 Michigan State (H), #9 Texas (A), #11 Kentucky (N), #23 Oregon (H), #25 UCLA (A)

Losses: #6 Connecticut (N), New Mexico (H), USC (A), LSU (A), Oregon State (A), Oregon (A)

2002-2003 Record: 25-2

Wins: #6 Kansas (A), #8 Texas (H), #9 Oregon (A), #19 Western Kentucky (H), #19 Stanford (A), #20 Cal (H), #23 Cal (A)

Losses: LSU (A), Stanford (A)

2013-2014 Record: 28-3

Wins: #6 Duke (N)

Losses: Cal (A), ASU (A), Oregon (A)

2021-2022 Record: 25-2

Wins: #3 UCLA (H), #4 Michigan (N), #16 USC (A), #19 USC

Losses: #7 UCLA (A), #19 Tennessee (A), Colorado (A)

2025-2026 Record: 28-2

Wins: #2 Houston (A), #3 Connecticut (A), #3 Florida (N), #6 Iowa State (H), #12 Alabama (N), #13 BYU (A), #14 Kansas (H), #15 UCLA (N), #20 Auburn (H), #23 BYU (H)

Losses: #9 Kansas (A), #16 Texas Tech (H)

Verdict

Coming into the year, I think I would have marked the 1987-1988 and 2002-2003 teams as the two best regular seasons.4 Like this year, those teams had only two losses.5 But those losses came against unranked teams.

When looking over these resumes, it is truly no contest. This year’s team has no unranked losses. They have ten ranked wins, including the second best win of any of these vintages, at #2 Houston.

It has truly been an awesome season and one we will all remember for a long time. Now, please go beat Colorado so I don’t look dumb for writing this.6

Coach and Official Interactions

In the last week or so, I have seen more discourse about the number of games that the best officials are working.

I certainly don’t envy their travel and ideally would prefer that the officials be well rested when they come to work, but the problem is everyone wants the best guys on their games, so they keep getting scheduled.7

Despite what some Wildcat fans might think, Arizona has generally gotten strong crews this season as the Big 12 has prioritized their best games as far as officiating assignments. The national showcase game for both teams and officials right now is Big Monday, and especially the later, Big 12, game.8

For the final Big Monday of the year, Arizona and Iowa State got about as well regarded of a crew as possible, combining for 24 previous Final Four games experience, and ranking 3rd, 4th, and 8th in KenPom’s 2026 ref ratings.9

After voicing some qualms about how the Houston game was called, I thoroughly enjoyed how much contact was let go in the Cyclones/Wildcats matchup.

Obviously, making a high percentage of “correct” calls is the primary focus for evaluation but interactions with coaches and players is also really important. A moment that ESPN caught on the way to commercial break showed Iowa State coach, TJ Otzelberger, voicing his displeasure to official Roger Ayers (click image to watch video).10

I was fortunate enough to be in person for this game and caught a similar interaction on the other end of the floor after a couple of no-calls went against Arizona.

Following the Kharchenkov turnover, official Jeffrey Anderson passed by Coach Lloyd, who let him know he felt there should have been a blocking foul called on the play. The conversation continued all the way to the baseline where Lloyd dropped his grievance just before the following play unfolded, including what sure looked like a double-dribble by Tamin Lipsey.

I have to commend Coach Lloyd, who said his piece, but did a great job to walk away and refrain from harping on it as Anderson passed him again on the way up the floor. Coaches rarely get technical fouls for a single comment. It is when they are unwilling to let a missed call go that even an even-tempered official might feel compelled to hand out a T.

But what I want to point out occurred a little less than a minute later at the media timeout. Anderson, who was positioned on the far baseline following a foul call that triggered the timeout, walked to the other end of the floor and asked Ayers to switch with him.

As Arizona broke the huddle, Anderson made himself available to Lloyd to discuss what had occurred. From where I was sitting, there is no way to tell whether Anderson shared his perspective or just directly said “I think I missed that one.”11 The two gentlemen spent probably 45 seconds talking amicably, and were still going as the ESPN broadcast returned.

Officials aren’t perfect; they are human. But these small things make a big difference in the long run. A pat on the back from Lloyd, a thumbs-up from Anderson, and a couple of high knees on the way back to administer the free throw. Credit to both guys for building that rapport with one another.

Appeal Watch

Arizona lost its first timeout of the year via the challenge/appeal system at Baylor trying to get a flagrant foul call on this blow to the face of Anthony Dell’Orso.

It can be tough to tell what is or isn’t going to rise to the level that justifies a flagrant upgrade and this game had already seen an earlier Jaden Bradley foul meet that criteria.

Coach Lloyd and staff now sit at 5-0 in challenges and 1-1 on appeals on the season, which is still a great tally. Let’s give some credit where it is due; the coach in the second row with the iPad, quickly reviewing each play and passing his assessment to Coach Lloyd: his son, and former Arizona player, Liam Lloyd.

Subscribe now

Next Game: at Colorado on Saturday, March 7th, 9:00PM MST.

You don’t want to be a prisoner of the moment, but there is a chance we look back on that win as an Arizona all-timer. There wasn’t quite the excitement of a Salim Stoudamire game winner or a Derrick Williams block, but this one was just as big in terms of season importance.

With Houston and Arizona both entering their only matchup of the season with 11-2 conference records and with an increasingly diminished Wildcat rotation, the Cats managed to nab a gritty victory in the Coogs’ house. There was a lot to like (and some to dislike) in the last stretch of games. Let’s take a look.

Subscribe now

I like how tough this team is.

I mean, how could you not? And if you weren’t convinced before, you better be now.1

No Koa Peat or Dwayne Aristode. Brayden Burries, clearly sick, plays 31 minutes. Anthony Dell’Orso cranks his ankle then returns. Motiejus Krivas and Tobe Awaka in foul trouble. Jaden Bradley plays 37 minutes and Ivan Kharchenkov plays 39 minutes, the majority of them at the four.

When people say “leave it all on the floor”, my mind will go to this game for awhile. And that’s after rebounding to beat BYU on Wednesday in a game that Arizona handled pretty much wire to wire down two and a half guys.2

I disliked how many fouls there were in the Houston game.

About those foul outs. Well, Awaka pretty much earned his, including three nowhere near the Cougars’ basket.

Krivas, however, I don’t think had a single absolutely unquestionable foul.

And even with that said, I think the officiating was overall very good. The first thing you ask for is consistency and this crew was definitely that in the 43 fouls that they called.

I know as is, 139 is not a lot of points scored, which means the defenses did alright in this game despite the fouls. It is just my preference to watch two of the toughest teams in the nation battle it out versus navigate foul trouble.

Four Houston players finished with four fouls. And just to be fair, here are some calls on the home team that I would like to see let go in my ideal version of a super intense basketball game.3

I liked Arizona paying a little more attention to the two-for-one.

In what will likely go down as my favorite random play of the season, Jaden Bradley prevented Texas Tech from getting an extra opportunity to end the first half, running sixteen seconds off the game clock, but not the shot clock, as was requested here months ago.4

Then versus BYU, Coach Lloyd used his first half timeout to save the clock, put in defensive subs, and set his defense with 42 seconds remaining in the half.

Anthony Dell’Orso would end up nailing a three-pointer at the buzzer on one of the Wildcats’ most frequently used baseline inbounds plays. Great call by coach to get his team an extra chance.

As long as we are on the “walking the dog” topic, Bradley and Co. are using the tactic later in games with leads as well, purposely draining the clock in both of the last two games.

For those who are still with us from last time, up four with 2:25 left and the ball is an 88.6% win probability, says inpredictable.com. After ten seconds of the ball rolling and no time off the shot clock, its 89.7%. Not huge, but something for free.

I didn’t like Houston’s end of game strategy.

Let’s keep on using that calculator. Anthony Dell’Orso gets the rebound at 1:17 up six. Houston waits 7 seconds then fouls. Of course, if they were going to foul, they should have done it as quickly as possible, but should they have?

Jaden Bradley is a 77.9% free throw shooter both this year and for his career.5 Here are the chances he makes 0, 1, or 2 with Houston regaining possession and their win probability at that point.

This all totals to only a 0.8% chance with this strategy. Without fouling, Arizona could have held the ball until 0:47-ish. A stop would have meant a 1.4% chance of winning at that point. This one’s pretty close so I think it was fine either way but I would have leaned towards trap and try to force a turnover when Arizona doesn’t want to shoot for 20 more seconds.

The issue was the next possession. The Cougars scored to cut the lead back to six with 1:02 left and called timeout to set their press.

Houston decides not to immediately foul, nor to foul on the pass out of the first trap. Instead, Kharchenkov walks the ball up the floor unimpeded and hands it to Bradley, who is finally fouled 13 seconds after the ball was inbounded. In the best case scenario where he misses both, Houston’s WP moved from 2.0% to 1.5% just losing that time.

I like some new sets that Arizona is using.

The Wildcats added a play to use Kharchenkov as the primary ball handler in the first ballscreen action coming up from the block in an “L” shape off a zipper cut.

Then versus Houston, Arizona came out of a timeout with Kharchenkov at point guard and Dell’Orso setting an INVERTED BALLSCREEN, something I have wanted to see the Wildcats toy with all year.

Unfortunately, this possession didn’t bear much fruit, leaving me worried we’d seen the last of it, only for Coach Lloyd to repeatedly call for inverted pick-and-roll actions over the next couple of minutes!

With Kharchenkov at the four, Arizona could run a 1-3 pick and roll to try to get a switch of Kingston Flemings onto Bradley and flow into a 4-1 PnR via a throw-and-chase screen to Kharchenkov.

Houston was forced to navigate this action with Chris Cenac Jr. covering the ball and Flemings covering the screener. They tried to not switch and gave up a layup; then they tried to switch and gave up a basket on a mismatch; then Emanuel Sharp refused to switch off Bradley and got whistled for his third foul.

I also want to give credit to Bradley for drawing Fleming’s third foul earlier in the half.

I liked the press break much better

Another advantage of the smaller lineup was that the Wildcats were forced into Kharchenkov being the inbounder late. In my breakdown of the end of the BYU game, I pointed out that Koa Peat rarely ran the baseline, making the first pass harder and longer. Kharchenkov did a much better job here moving the defense and creating better passing angles to start the press break.

I thought Arizona did a better job switching up their positioning, even going to the football-style inbounds in the last clip above, which I really enjoyed.

Also, who would have thought the Cats would be going to offensive/defensive substitutions of Evan Nelson and Sidi Gueye to close the game at Houston? Well, that’s how it ended up and it made perfect sense. Well executed.

I haven’t liked Arizona’s reliance on the midrange game.

Keeping this short for now as it may be a topic for a further deep dive, but as pointed out earlier this year, the Cats can sometimes settle for contested, off the dribble, midrange shots, especially against quality opponents.

There was a stretch against Houston where it looked like Bradley and Flemings might just alternate them the rest of the game. Eventually, the Wildcats got better looks while the Cougars did not.

But this was not the case versus Kansas and Texas Tech, where Arizona shot only 30% of their attempts at the rim, compared to 41% on the year and in conference wins. On those shots at the rim, the Wildcats shot a dismal 40%. Something to keep an eye on moving forward.

I liked Coach Lloyd giving credit to Coach Sampson

In his post game press conference, Coach Lloyd had effluent praise for Houston coach, Kelvin Sampson, who should be familiar to most Arizona fans dating all the way back to his time at Washington State.

Sampson, who got a raw deal how his time at Oklahoma ended, spent time in the NBA before coming back to the college game and reviving Houston into a powerhouse.

Story Time

McKale Center hosted the first and second rounds of the NCAA tournament many times between 1977 and 2011. That meant eight teams in town simultaneously so they would often use local high schools for their practice the day before their game and/or walkthrough the day of.

My dad coached high school basketball in Tucson most of my life and one perk was that, depending on the coach, they would allow us to watch. There were a lot of good coaches that came through, but no one was more grateful and kind than Kelvin Sampson when he brought Oklahoma in 1997.6

Funny enough, Coach Lloyd was also a guest. I do not remember meeting him when Mark Few and Gonzaga practiced in the gym in 2005, but I probably did. The memory that has stuck with me from that one was Derek Raivio going through almost the entire walkthrough barefoot.

Rotations

We spent a good amount of time in the last article looking at Arizona’s rotations, only for that to all go out the window with two players out for an extended stretch. Here’s how Arizona has handled it so far.

Texas Tech

BYU

Houston

Sidi Gueye has averaged 9 minutes per game in the last two and Evan Nelson 6.5. They have each held up well enough trying to soak up some of the 45 minutes Arizona is trying to replace.7

Kharchenkov, Bradley, and Dell’Orso are playing huge minutes right now to keep the Wildcats afloat. I actually think the lineup of those three, Bradley, and one post is a good one for the Cats and something they should go to even when healthy to mix it up.

For now, it is important to have one of those two posts out there at all times. Arizona was forced into seven minutes without Krivas or Awaka on the floor versus Houston. If they are both in foul trouble, I would strongly consider staggering their minutes earlier and/or not starting both posts to begin the second half.

Subscribe now

Next Game: at Baylor on Tuesday, February 24th, 7:00PM MST.

Concerns

Arizona held a 55-44 lead with 17:02 remaining versus Kansas. At that point KenPom estimated a win probability of 89.2%.

One might think that rating was an underestimate given that the Cats are one of the most consistent teams in the country.1 However, this was not the first time this year that the Wildcats struggled to maintain a second half lead.

After holding 75% win probabilities against Florida, UCLA, and Connecticut, Arizona was forced to come from behind to win each of those games. They also nearly gave up a game recently in Provo where they held a 99.7% win probability with just over a minute to go.

If the Wildcats beat teams with great defense and an offense built to punish teams in the paint, why have they not been able to rely on those things to put away their best opponents? It’s certainly a question worthy of more analysis for Coach Lloyd and staff.

For this article, let’s take the opportunity to review the opposite side, since we have had so few opportunities to do so. How do the Cats play when they are down late?

Late in games, it is well understood that teams that are losing must play the “foul game”, which is preferable to letting the clock run out. I will however refer to this 2017 article from Zach Lowe discussing The Basketball Tournament’s implementation of the Elam ending, in which he quotes Elam’s research finding that of 397 televised NBA games since 2014 in which the losing team had played the “foul game”, they had won a total of zero.

They are rare but not impossible, as Arizona fans know from last season’s contest against Iowa State where Joshua Jefferson was fouled and missed one of two free throws preceding Caleb Love’s tying shot from beyond half-court. Arizona eventually prevailed in overtime.

Against Connecticut, the Huskies never led by more than two points (at 3:02 and 2:16). The first deficit was answered by a Koa Peat stick-back of his own miss and the second deficit by a single made Peat free throw, a defensive stop, and then a stick-back by Mo Krivas. The Cats never relinquished the lead again.

There was never a need for Arizona to adjust its offensive strategy against Connecticut as they were never more than a single possession down. However, once a team is down three or more with few possessions left, a new factor becomes much more significant, variance.

Here’s an overly simplified example. A team trails by 4 with a minute to go. They can choose between:

• Strategy X which has an expected value (EV) of +1 with a variance of 3

• Strategy Y with an EV of -1 and a variance of 10

In the long run, the former will incur to a two points better outcome on average.2 So, which would you choose?

In this toy example, Strategy X will result in a win 4.2% of the time while Strategy Y will result in a win 5.7% of the time.3 Variance is the friend of the trailing team.

And this is something I have been surprised to not hear more about the last couple of days. What’s one of the most obvious ways to increase variance? Shoot threes instead of twos, something the Wildcats just do not do.

A quick aside: win probabilities (WP) are notoriously difficult to calculate. Think of all factors that would need to be included: time, score, possession, foul counts, timeouts remaining, challenges remaining, possession arrow, personnel for both teams, etc. Essentially everything that defines the state of the game.4

But that doesn’t mean they are useless.5 Kenpom does not expose its WP model and the best college basketball WP calculator I found from Bart Torvik is, by his own admission, crappy. A bespoke semi-accurate WP model6 would be a huge advantage for any program and I hope Arizona uses one.

For this discussion, I will be using the inpredictable NBA WP calculator as it is the best publicly available one I know of.

Scenario #1: 49 seconds remaining. Kansas 77 Arizona 71. UofA ball.

Following a Melvin Council Jr. bucket, Coach Lloyd took his third timeout of the game. Arizona’s win probability at this moment was 1.5%. Here is Arizona’s next possession (sorry for the TV glitch).

1. This possession is slow to develop with a quarter of the remaining game time elapsing.

2. Of Arizona’s eight rotation players, the two with the greatest 3 point attempt rates are Anthony Dell’Orso and Dwayne Aristode, neither of whom are on the floor coming out of the timeout.

Here are the win probabilities at the end of a possession with 37 seconds left:

Jaden Bradley has shot 46.6% (27/58) on the season on two-point jumpers outside the paint.7 I have written previously about my dislike for two point shots away from the rim, specifically related to this Wildcat team’s increased usage of them against quality opponents.

I’m right with Coach Lloyd, who said he wants “paint twos and free throws,” but my guess would be that he also generally opposes these midrange shots, especially in this scenario.

Strategy X (midrange jumper): 0.466 x 2.0% + (1-.466) x 0.2% = 1.04% WP

— Consider breakeven three point percentage as variable p

Strategy Y (three pointer): p x 4.9% + (1-p) x 0.2% = 1.04% WP

— p = 0.179

If Arizona could have shot a three pointer on this possession with at least an 18% chance of going in, they would have been better off than the shot they got.

That’s without even accounting for the fact that they would have had nearly 30% more opportunities for offensive rebounds which would knock that breakeven point down even further. I also think they could have gotten a three pointer off much quicker.

Scenario #2: 31 seconds remaining. Kansas 79 Arizona 76. UofA ball.

After the Bradley jumper, Ivan Kharchenkov made a great defensive play to force a turnover and Arizona ran what I called “high cut double” in my baseline-out-of-bounds video, and what Arizona signals as “elbow-two” for a Burries three-pointer.

The Wildcats purposely fouled Council who made both free throws (10.2% WP), setting up the classic three vs quick-two decision. Here’s how that played out:

1. Arizona made no offensive subs during the Council free throws and still had two non-shooters on the floor.

2. The possession was again slow to develop. Burries field goal attempt ended at 0:18, meaning the Wildcats used 42% of the remaining time before attempting a two-point field goal.

Here are the win probabilities at the end of a possession with 18 seconds left:

It is harder to say what the EV would be for Burries on this take than the Bradley jumper above. Part of the value in the quick-two strategy is that the defense does not want to foul and may give up an easy layup. That was not the case here, but I think it is inarguable that a shooting foul would have been a good result for the Wildcats on that drive.

Burries is a 78.8% FT shooter and the chance he makes both is 62.1%. I am ignoring if he makes 1 of 2 but I am also assuming he gets fouled 100% of the time (with no and-one). I could complicate this further but I would still be making a lot of guesses on percentages.

Overall, I am very comfortable saying that 1.242 points is an upper bound on the expected value of that drive, and I believe that in reality, it is lower. But let’s use that as our input.

Strategy X (take to basket): .621 x 18.3% + (1-.621) x 2.9% = 12.5% WP

— Consider breakeven three point percentage as variable p

Strategy Y (three pointer): p x 38.1% + (1-p) x 2.9% = 12.5% WP

— p = 0.272

This is closer than the first situation, but I still think Arizona could have found a 27% three-point attempt, and found one much quicker than this drive. I will again say that breakeven number is even lower in reality due to more offensive rebound opportunity and the fact that we used an upper bound for the drive EV.

Scenario #3: 16 seconds remaining. Kansas 80 Arizona 76. UofA ball.

Council split these free throws and Kharchenkov grabbed the defensive rebound (3.2% WP). This time he pushed the ball quickly to the basket and dished to Krivas for an 8-foot push shot.

Here are the win probabilities at the end of a possession with 10 seconds left:

The shot that Krivas ends up with is about as good as you can hope for. But our analysis is based on the moment Kharchenkov chooses not to pull up for three and to instead drive inside the arc. Just for fun, let’s say at that moment he has an 80% chance of scoring, which is unreasonably high.

Strategy X (take to basket): 0.8 x 5.0% + (1-0.8) x 0.3% = 4.1% WP

— Consider breakeven three point percentage as variable p

Strategy Y (three pointer): p x 14.3% + (1-p) x 0.3% = 4.5% WP

— p = 0.269

And again, a 27% chance at three would have still been a better choice, with all the other caveats mentioned above.

Scenario #4: 10 seconds remaining. Kansas 80 Arizona 78. KU ball.

No more math. Back to straight film breakdown. Arizona took their final timeout after the made basket to set up their pressing defense. Here’s what followed:

I think there are two decisions to be made and communicated in the huddle:

1. Are we switching everything or are we staying with our man?

2. Are we fouling immediately or are we trying for a steal then fouling if another pass is made?8

After watching this clip multiple times, I cannot answer either question.

Arizona made one sub here, Tobe Awaka replacing Mo Krivas. Understandably, the Cats did not want Krivas chasing his man around and/or switching onto a guard, although I find it hard to believe Aristode wouldn’t have been even more suited to the task than Awaka. I would have also been intrigued to see Krivas on the ball if the plan was to foul immediately on an inbounds.

Awaka and Bradley’s men come together and the way Awaka covers towards the ball tells me he has no intention of switching. Kharchenkov’s man sets a screen that he does not switch. Meanwhile, Burries leans on the screen and his man gets ten feet of separation.

It’s worth mentioning that there is no additional punishment in college basketball for fouling before the inbounds. In the NBA such a foul would result in one free throw and retention of possession. You would expect players to be totally locked to their man, playing physical, holding jerseys. We’ve seen this by opponents trying to come back vs Arizona.

Peat leaves his man immediately on the pass but with Bradley and Awaka both up the floor, neither is close enough to take away the pass back to the inbounder and the chase is on.

In the end, it probably didn’t make a difference to give that foul with 0:05 instead of 0:10. Tre White made both free throws and iced the game. But that’s what is almost always to be expected when playing the foul game without much variance.

Rotations

One of the toughest things to evaluate analytically is lineup combinations. As stated before, this type of analysis suffers from small sample size. However, the Wildcats have kept a fairly consistent rotation this season and have been fortunate to mostly avoid injuries9.

The same five guys have started every game and those guys have started the second half together in 22 games. Kharchenkov missed most of the Norfolk State game after an ankle roll and Jaden Bradley came off the bench in the second half versus Denver.

Arizona has a fairly clean separation of players in their rotation: three guards (Bradley, Burries, Dell’Orso), two small forwards (Kharchenkov, Aristode), and three posts (Peat, Krivas, Awaka).

• Arizona has played 1594 possessions with some combination of these eight guys (i.e., non-garbage time).10

• Guards

  • 0 possessions with 0 of 3.

  • 10 possessions with 1 of 3. (4 JB only, 5 BB only, 1 ADO only)

  • 1472 possessions with 2 of 3 (341 no JB, 386 no BB, 745 no ADO)

  • 112 possessions with 3 of 3

• Small Forwards

  • 67 possessions with 0 of 2.

  • 1427 possessions with 1 of 2. (964 IK only, 463 DA only)

  • 101 possessions with 2 of 2.

• Posts

  • 0 possessions with 0 of 3.

  • 137 possessions with 1 of 3. (17 KP only, 42 MK only, 78 TA only)

  • 1458 possessions with 2 of 3 (291 no KP, 480 no MK, 686 no TA)

  • 1 possession with 3 of 311

• Arizona plays a lineup of two guards, one small forward, and two posts in 87% of possessions (1381/1594).

Substitution Patterns

Because of the mostly clear separation in positional groupings, substitutions have predominantly stayed intra-position, especially at the beginning of each half.

• Guards

  • Guards have fully rotated (e.g., Dell’Orso subs for Bradley, Bradley for Burries, then Burries for Dell’Orso) to start the first half in 16 of 24 games. Four more of those games saw a three guard lineup briefly before Kharchenkov replaced Dell’Orso.

  • Guards have fully rotated to start the second half in 12 of 24 games, with most exceptions occurring due to large leads.

  • In the earlier part of the season, Burries was more often the first guard subbed out, but as the season has gone on, Bradley is more often coming out first.

• Small Forwards

  • Small forwards have fully rotated (i.e., Aristode subs for Kharchenkov, then Kharchenkov for Aristode) to start the first half in 18 of 24 games.

  • Small forwards have fully rotated to start the second half in 13 of 24 games.

• Posts

  • Posts have fully rotated (e.g., Awaka subs for Krivas, Krivas for Peat, then Peat for Awaka) to start the first half in 16 of 24 games.

  • Posts have fully rotated to start the second half in 8 of 24 games.

  • Krivas has been more likely to sub out first than Peat.

Lineup Combinations

It should surprise no one that the most commonly used 5-man lineup is the starting five, which has played 453 possessions together (28.4% of non-garbage time).

Furthermore, the most common 3-man combos are the ten possible combinations of the starters.12 However, because of the consistency of the substitution patterns, the next most common 3-man combination includes no starters.

The combination of Dell’Orso, Aristode, and Awaka has played 401 possessions together (25.1% of non-garbage time). Another way to say this would be that Arizona plays over a quarter of its non-garbage time possessions with only two starters on the floor.

I started looking at these combinations to evaluate Dwayne Aristode, who is a nice complimentary piece right now, but not a creator yet, and was initially surprised to see that he has only played 23 possessions this year slotted in at small forward with the two starting guards and two starting posts.

Dell’Orso has more time amongst the starters due to the three guard lineups, but totals only 128 possessions along one starting guard, Kharchenkov, Peat, and Krivas. Awaka has the most shared floor time with four starters, 195 possessions.

Predictions Going Forward

If you look at the two charts above, the BYU game and especially the Kansas game included a lot less of the three subs together and more of the starters. That partially just has to do with total minutes played.

With Dell’Orso’s minutes trending more similar to Aristode’s, predominately so Bradley and Burries can spend more time on the floor, I wonder if there is opportunity to stagger ADO and DA more.

The current pattern has been to sub at all three positions between 16 and 14 minutes on the clock. The posts almost always start their rest here but the guards sometimes delay, which I think makes more sense if they each will only get one break.

If Aristode but not Dell’Orso entered around 16, the Cats could bring Kharchenkov back with Dell’Orso around 12. Bradley and Burries would take their rest from 12 to 6 before Aristode spotted Kharchenkov once again from 6 to 4 so he is fresh for the close.

Such a pattern would elevate the two starting guards to 34 minutes and Kharchenkov to 28 minutes, while Aristode and Dell’Orso would each get 12 minutes per game. Of course, this would only be a guide that could be adjusted depending on game conditions, especially if there was a reason to play the three guards and/or Kharchenkov at the four for awhile.

As far as the posts, their stints have been shorter, more matchup dependent, and often altered due to the foul situation. I wouldn’t suggest trying to time those up with any of the other rotations. It’s best for all three to be able to play hard, get a rest, and go again.

However, the numbers bear out that the Cats are best with Krivas on the floor, especially defensively. If Krivas can only go 24 minutes, then that’s what it is. But if there is a way to push those numbers to the high 20’s, I think it would be in the Wildcats favor.

Krivas, who is shooting 80% from the free throw line, compared to Awaka (65%) and Peat (61%), has not closed many games this year. The Cats game at Kansas was the first since early games against Florida, UCLA, and UCONN where he played the majority of the last four minutes.13

I’ll be looking to see if Coach Lloyd and staff adjust the second half rotations so he is ready to close against the gauntlet of opponents Arizona has remaining.

Challenges

Coach Lloyd and staff remain perfect on the year, now 5-0 on challenges and 1-0 on appeal for flagrant foul, after successful challenges versus Oklahoma State and Kansas.

A couple of things of note:

• These were Arizona’s first challenges since December 20th vs San Diego State

• These were the two earliest times in the game that Arizona has risked a timeout for challenge or appeal.

• Related to the challenge vs Kansas: I’ve voiced my disappointment in the NCAA omitting fouls from their challenge process and I mentioned specifically the “foul proximate to the out-of-bounds violation” in a previous article. Here’s how the NBA rule is worded in Rule 14, Section III(b) :

  If an instant replay review of an out-of-bounds violation is triggered by a Challenge, the Replay Center Official will review the video to evaluate whether the out-of-bounds violation was correctly called.

  
  The Replay Center Official (and, with respect to Section III (b) (7) below, the on-court crew chief) may also review the video to determine only the following other matters:

  …

  7) Whether a foul proximate to the out-of-bounds violation should have been called.

  Well that doesn’t exist in college basketball. If you think Brayden Burries fouled Elmarko Jackson, there is nothing the referees can do about it if they didn’t call it live. And they can’t let Kansas keep the ball if it touched Jackson last.

  This time, it may have worked in the Wildcats favor but I remain nervous where this case could arise in a more pivotal moment.

Subscribe now

Next Game: Home vs Texas Tech on Saturday, February 14th, 4:30PM MST.

BYU Clutch Time

The Wildcats led 64-45 with 10:53 to go, and 82-71 with 1:22 left. Somehow, they had to barely hang on for the win. What happened? I broke it all down in my latest video.

What’s New (Quick Hits)

Koa Peat the Creator

Early in the season, I advocated for the Wildcats to try an inverted pick and roll with Koa Peat as the ball handler and one of the guards as the screener. While we haven’t gotten that exactly, Arizona did have Peat in the creator roll twice this week and Awaka as the screener in a four-five PnR.

Wheel ATO for ADO

Arizona’s most run set other than its standard flow offense is a wheel around the top of the key with the point guard getting the ball back into a 1-5 PnR. Here’s the set twice against Bethune-Cookman.

We are at the point in the season where teams may have scouted that out, so it’s time to counter. Out of timeouts vs both Cincinnati and West Virginia, the Cats had Tobe Awaka fake the ball screen and go into a wide pindown for Anthony Dell’Orso. Neither directly resulted in points, but its fun to see those little tweaks.

Two For One, Appeal, and Timeout Updates

We reviewed two-for-one strategy a few weeks ago. Arizona had another opportunity versus Cincinnati and chose to run normal offense. BYU instead took a quick three to ensure they would get another possession. They scored on neither; however, Tobe Awaka did pick up a third foul in this stretch.

Coach Lloyd took his turn appealing for a flagrant foul when Motiejus Krivas let coaches know he has been pulled backwards by the shoulders. Lloyd gave credit to the coaching staff for the decision to appeal, which the Cats won. Krivas was on the receiving end of two flagrant fouls against Cincinnati.

Lloyd is now 3-0 on challenges and 1-0 on appeals for the year.

We also hit on timeouts in the same recent newsletter. In the five games since, Arizona forfeited one first half timeout, used three with less than a minute to go, and Jaden Bradley took one to avoid a five-second call. So the Cats have still used only four first half timeouts for other reasons this season.

Coach Lloyd did use all four timeouts against BYU, including three where it would be BYU’s ball coming out of the timeout. The Cougars did not score on any of those chances, including the play that ended with Brayden Burries’s block to close the game.

Subscribe now

Next up: at “The School Up North” on Saturday, January 31st, Noon MST.

This year’s group currently ranks 14th in offense and 5th in defense.1 After finishing 27th defensively a year ago, this group has developed an identity as a hard-playing, unselfish team and because of that, they are much more enjoyable to watch.

But they are 11-13 in games against teams with winning records and have the ninth hardest strength of schedule in the league remaining.2 Absent a playoff draw against an injury-saddled opponent, it seems that a reasonable trajectory for this team is a first-round playoff exit.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the Suns roster, what options they have, and where they should be going from here.

Roster

To give Phoenix credit, they have done a great job bringing in and developing players in the last two seasons.

Ryan Dunn and Oso Ighodaro, both of whom the Suns traded for on draft night in 2024, are showing growth. Collin Gillespie (minimum veteran salary, coming off a two-way), Jordan Goodwin (off waivers), and Jamaree Bouyea (two-way) have held down the point guard position admirably.

And while it’s still too early to judge returns on Jalen Green and to a lesser degree, Mark Williams, Dillon Brooks has been a home run. No one deserves more credit for the identity change than he does.

I’ve listed players in what I consider to be their natural position. However, both Rasheer Fleming and Nigel Hayes-Davis have played limited minutes, with Brooks, O’Neale, and Dunn spending time at the four.

The Suns packaged multiple picks to trade up for Fleming and long-term, would hope that 2025 first round draft pick, Khaman Maluach, is the prize piece in return from trading Kevin Durant to Houston. Both have spent time in the G League this season but will need to see the NBA floor significantly more in 2026-2027 for that investment to be on track.

That may necessitate trading one of the above small forwards to clear the space for Fleming and/or Ighodaro to get more run at power forward if Maluach moves into the backup center minutes.3

If the Suns wanted to be buyers at the deadline, power forward would be the natural place to look to upgrade. As far as weaknesses to address, Phoenix is currently ranked 23rd in defensive rebound percentage while fouling the fourth most in the league, per Cleaning the Glass.

Draft Pick Inventory

On February 9th, 2023, Phoenix sent Mikel Bridges, Cameron Johnson, four first round picks, and one swap to Brooklyn to acquire Kevin Durant.

The preceding eight months had seen Donovan Mitchell traded for three first round picks and two swaps and Rudy Gobert traded for (effectively) five first round picks and a swap. Even Dejounte Murray garnered a haul of three first round picks and one swap.

Trading for Durant was an all in move for a franchise that had held a 2-0 finals lead less than two years prior and was coming off of a 2021-2022 season in which they set the franchise record for wins, before a very disappointing second round exit. The market was inflated, but this was Kevin Durant, and he would be the missing piece.

After injuries to Durant and Chris Paul played a factor in a Suns second round playoff exit, the Suns chose to double down, sending four first round pick swaps and six second rounders to Washington to bring in Bradley Beal.

Two and a half years later, the Suns have zero playoff game wins to show for it. Mikel Bridges was traded to New York for another five first rounders and Cameron Johnson went to Denver for one pick plus Michael Porter Jr, who very well may be flipped for two more by the deadline

Toumani Camara, who was traded to move on from Deandre Ayton, has become one of the best defensive wings in the league for Portland, while Phoenix later paid a first round pick to dump Jusuf Nurkic to Charlotte. Nassir Little, who was also acquired in the Ayton trade along with Nurkic, remains on the Suns cap sheet as dead money through 2030, after being waived and his salary stretched, same as Bradley Beal and EJ Liddell.

The Suns also traded their 2031 first round pick to Utah unprotected, which effectively netted Mark Williams and the least favorable of Utah, Cleveland, and Minnesota’s first round selections in 2027.

So what picks do the Suns still have in their coffers? Horcruxed4 first rounders in 2027, 2028, and 2030, their own pick in 20325, along with second rounders in 2026, 2029, and 2032.6 And because of the Stepien Rule7, Phoenix cannot trade any of those first round picks outright until after this year’s draft.8

Trade Prospects

How would someone go about turning a paper clip into a house? To start, you trade that paper clip for a fish-shaped pen.9

In 2016, amid rumors that Kevin Durant was not a lock to return to Oklahoma City, the Thunder completed a draft night deal to send Serge Ibaka to Orlando. Ibaka had finished second in defensive player of the year voting in 2012 and 2013, and was viewed as one of the elite rim protectors in the league.

OKC was not necessarily blowing up their team, but viewed Ibaka’s value as at its peak, and chose to trade him for Victor Oladipo, who had previously been drafted #2 overall but not lived up to it with the Magic, and the 11th pick in that year’s draft, Domantas Sabonis.

One year later, Ibaka was no longer with the Magic after being traded to Toronto for Terrence Ross and the draft pick that had become Anžejs Pasečniks. Meanwhile, Oladipo and Sabonis were no longer with the Thunder, as they were traded together for Paul George.10

It’s at this point that basketball fans can see the paper-clip funded house in the distance. Only two years later, on July 10, 2019, Paul George was traded to the Los Angeles Clippers. The return: five first round picks, two swaps, and an all-rookie second-team guard named Shai Gilgeous-Alexander.

Even Sam Presti would tell you that it was not his plan to trade Serge Ibaka in order to eventually land the 2025 NBA MVP. But the lesson to learn is, buy low, sell high, and do that enough times that good things could happen. Buying low, on second draft guys11 like Oladipo, on non-premium draft picks, like the rights to Sabonis, or distressed assets, like Paul George’s contract, are not exactly easy, but it is still the “easy part.”

Deciding when to sell high, especially when the team is good, is extremely difficult. Which brings us back to the Suns, who are, at this moment, good.

Nick Richards

Let’s start with an option that isn’t too painful. Richards has slipped out of the rotation this season, but might be of some use to another team looking to fill backup center minutes. An unrestricted free agent this summer, currently making $5 million, I don’t think Richards is in Phoenix’s long-term plans.

With the Suns sitting only $255,632 over the tax threshold, swapping Richards for a player making a minimum salary (~$2.3M) would be a clean way for Phoenix to duck the tax and be halfway to resetting their clock as a tax repeater team.

Jordan Goodwin

Goodwin has been perhaps the Suns’ most exciting player in January, including an 8-13 3FG performance in a win over Oklahoma City. However, with Collin Gillespie’s emergence and the potential to convert Jamaree Bouyea’s contract after the deadline, along with Jalen Green’s upcoming return, Goodwin might be the odd man out.

Goodwin is also an unrestricted free agent this summer and will turn 28 around the start of next season. He is on a minimum contract this season. If the Suns could send him elsewhere, for a second time in his career, and collect a second round pick or two, that might be a good move.

Collin Gillespie

Also on a minimum deal, Gillespie has risen to the ranks of starting level point guard this season and the Suns should try to retain him long-term. Phoenix will hold his early-bird rights this summer and with the success and opportunity available in Phoenix, I would think he will want to re-sign.

Grayson Allen and Royce O’Neale

These two vacillate between serviceable starters, solid bench players, and guys you maybe don’t want on your books for another two seasons. Their salaries, $16,875,000 and $10,125,000 respectively, sit in a weird middle range.

I’m not sure either would fetch a significant return and it would likely be better to roll with them through the end of the year and see what options are available with a more flexible market in the summer. That being said, if their inclusion helps to complete a bigger deal, or cut costs for the future, the Suns shouldn’t hesitate to do it.

Ryan Dunn, Oso Ighodaro, Khaman Maluach, and Rasheer Fleming

All of these guys are under contracts with multiple years of team control remaining and potential to improve. Unless someone values them highly and bowls Phoenix over with an offer, they are here to stay.

Mark Williams and Nigel Hayes-Davis - Restricted Free Agents

The Suns invested two first round picks to trade for Williams this offseason, presumably with the intention of re-signing him in restricted free agency this summer. Williams’s skill has never been in question, and his appearance in 37 of 42 games this season has at least temporarily quieted concerns about his injury risk.

Meanwhile, Hayes-Davis has not made a significant impact that would lead me to believe that there would be much interest at the deadline, other than to open a roster spot. He is also a restricted free agent this upcoming summer and if Phoenix sees upside, they should be able to get him back on a minimum.

Jalen Green

Green is exactly the type of player that the Suns should be taking a shot on: a highly drafted, new environment, potential star. Unfortunately, he has missed all but two games so far this season. Therefore, Phoenix will likely wish to take any decision into next season before making any further moves.

Green is in the first year of a 2+1 extension that he received from Houston, but is extension eligible again next October. Unless he breaks out in the playoffs, I can’t imagine the Suns will be interested in doing that.

In the worst case scenario where Green underperforms in the next year, the Suns would not be forced to sell low. It would be unlikely in that case that Green would decline his player option unless a team-friendly longer deal was appealing. So Phoenix effectively has two more years to see if his stock rises.

Dillon Brooks

Now for the hard part. As I said earlier, Brooks deserves a ton of credit for the Suns’ turnaround this year. He is Phoenix’s second leading scorer and their perimeter stopper on defense.12

He is also turning 30 this week and is, in my opinion, a floor-raiser, not a ceiling-raiser. It is very unlikely that a team with Brooks on it will be bad, but only once has he advanced out of the first round, a 2021-2022 season in Memphis in which he missed more than half the year as the Grizzlies claimed the 2-seed.

I maintain a database of NBA player comps based on player type informative statistics and impact metrics. Here are five players that are statistically similar to Dillon Brooks: Zaccharie Risacher, De’Andre Hunter, Cameron Johnson, Kevin Huerter, and Brice Sensabaugh.

Brooks is older than all five of those players and makes more money than all but Hunter. His trade value will never be higher than it is right now. If the Suns can stomach it, they should be shopping his value around the league. To me, this is the most important piece of business the Suns have on their docket.

To further complicate things, Brooks is extension eligible this summer, looking to secure perhaps the final big payday of his career after showing out for the Suns this season. If he would be open to something like two additional years at $40 million, that’s something to discuss. However, Brooks is eligible for a four-year $125 million extension, running through 2031, when Brooks will be 35.

If his camp is asking for something like that in an extension, there could be significant discontent as soon as next season. Brooks has historically had a shelf life on a team before he starts to rub people the wrong way, his time in Memphis ending with the Grizzlies informing him they wouldn’t re-sign him under any circumstances.

Devin Booker

And the really hard part. The Suns should be looking for opportunities to move on from their franchise player.

Booker is re-engaged this season and worthy of consideration as an All-Star. He currently sits 15th in LEBRON WAR and if the Suns continue on their pace, will warrant All-NBA discussion, partially because the 65-game minimum will rule some others out. He has two previous All-NBA appearances, including a first-team in 2021-2022.

But his three-point percentage has fallen consistently since then, down from 38.3% to 30.1% this year. He ranks 26th in EPM and 40th in DPM and you can see where that is trending.

It is reasonable to think that Booker is somewhere between the 20th and 35th best player in the NBA at this moment. But eight teams have multiple players ranked higher than Booker in expected EPM, Booker’s better multi-season impact metric.

At best, Booker is the second best player on a contender and the Suns have no clear path to acquiring a “best player”. Meanwhile, Booker is paid the 9th most in the league.

Phoenix made the decision to extend Booker last summer even though he had three years remaining on his current deal. The extension will pay $145 million over two years.

Booker is currently projected to be the 3rd highest paid player in 2029-2030, behind Jayson Tatum and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, two players who have already been the best player on a championship team and are two years younger. Booker even has a player option on that final year; although at age 33, he would only decline that as part of an agreement to add more years at a lower average number.

We just watched this story play out in Atlanta with Trey Young, who was traded for neutral value (no picks and no significant players). Memphis is having similar issues shopping Ja Morant. The 2026 summer may be the last time that the Suns could move Booker for a positive return. By 2028, they would likely need to attach a pick to get off of his contract.

Trade Hypotheticals

The Suns have been adamant that they are not parting with Devin Booker, who is trade eligible again as of January 10th, the six month anniversary of his extension. But let’s start with what they could return if they were interested.

Devin Booker For Young Players and/or Picks

Best Potential Partners: Chicago, Detroit, San Antonio

The Pistons (Harris and two of Ivey, LeVert, and Holland) and the Spurs (Barnes, Olynyk, and either Johnson or Vassell)13 could be in a better position this season if they trade for Booker, but my estimate is that they will make moves around the edges, if anything, and keep their powder dry after they see what they look like in these playoffs.

However, for Chicago, who has been stuck just under .500 for the past three seasons and are currently projected to be in the play-in again, now might be the time to make a move in one direction or another.

Having locked up Josh Giddey at a reasonable number through 2029, the next important business that the Bulls have with their current roster is Coby White’s upcoming free agency. White and Giddey have some duplicative skillsets and I expect Chicago to attempt to sign-and-trade White rather than retain him long-term.

Other than Giddey, the only players I would consider part of the Bulls’ future are Matas Buzelis, who remains on his rookie contract through 2028, and perhaps Noa Essengue, who has missed most of his rookie season with injury.

Chicago has some big expiring contracts. Nikola Vucevic could likely be traded for positive value, but Zach Collins and Kevin Huerter could not. The Bulls would also love to get off of Patrick Williams’s contract, which currently sits on their books through 2029.

The Bulls hold all seven of their first round picks plus a Portland pick that is lottery protected in 2026, 2027, and 2028 before reverting to a second rounder. They also have their own second round picks in 2028-2032.

Bulls Receive: Devin Booker, Nick Richards, and Nigel Hayes-Davis.

Suns Receive: Patrick Williams, Zach Collins, Kevin Huerter, the Bulls’ 2029 first round pick, the Bulls’ 2031 first round pick, and first round pick swap rights in 2028.

Bulls Rationale: Chicago will not be bad enough to full on tank nor have they ever shown interest to in the past when they were better set up for it. Booker fits well with Giddey and Buzelis and signals that the Bulls are serious about contending soon.

They retain their 2026 first rounder with an 11.2% chance at a top-3 pick, along with the future Portland pick, their own picks in 2027 and 2033 (once this summer hits), and swap possibilities in 2030 and 2032.

If Giannis Antetokounmpo fails to sign an extension this summer, the Bucks will face the choice of moving him or potentially losing him for nothing the following summer. A sign-and-trade of Coby White in the range of the $30 million dollars that he supposedly wants, would be just enough, considering base year compensation, to be paired with the contracts of Isaac Okoro, Jalen Smith, and Tre Jones to go get the Greek Freak.

Chicago would be able to fill out their roster with the full non-taxpayer midlevel and biannual exception, along with minimums, and still not enter the tax in 2026-2027. Signing another NTMLE in 2027 would push the Bulls to the tax the following year, but they would be able to stay under the first apron.

If the Bucks played out the 2026-2027 season with Antetokounmpo, the Bulls would be perfectly set up to be a cap space team in the summer of 202714, the last year before Buzelis’s extension would take effect. With a complementary star like Devin Booker, and rising young players Giddey and Buzelis, Chicago seems like a place that Giannis would sign a long-term extension or new contract. Only an hour and a half from Milwaukee, this could be a nice fit.

Suns Rationale: When in doubt, trade with the Bulls or Kings (or Pelicans recently). Getting two unprotected picks could be a windfall. 2029 seems far away to wait, much less 2031, but that is kind of the point. Booker’s extension will have kicked in and the party may be over already in Chicago by then.

The Suns also regain some value in their 2028 pick in a couple of ways:

1. Currently, that pick is set to be the worst of four teams, nearly guaranteed to fall in the late first round. By adding swap rights, there is at least some chance it lands at a higher spot, which is nice because…

2. Phoenix will now be able to trade that 2028 pick outright, having added a 2029 pick to their inventory, thus avoiding the constraints of the Stepien rule. The same is true of their “least of three teams” pick in 2030, as they also add a 2031 pick in this deal.

There’s no question that this would be upsetting to some Suns fans, but Phoenix could lean into a much younger core group and try to develop. Plus, Jalen Green would get a clear runway to see what he could become.15 And Devin Booker gets a chance to play on a real contender in his late prime, which he definitely deserves.

An Out-of-the-Box Possible Option

Since the Suns are definitely not going to change course and trade Devin Booker just because I think they should, I’ve been toying with another possibility; however, there’s a lot of uncertainty with it.

The NBA has teased expansion for a long time, most often with Seattle and Las Vegas as the predicted locations. The CBA does not actually contain a ton of language about how expansion is handled and if the NBA were to expand, those rules would likely be re-evaluated.

However, if we went back to the last time the NBA had a two-team expansion, in 1995 with the introduction of the Grizzlies and Raptors, each existing team was able to protect up to eight players from their current rosters16, with all remaining players under contract pooled for the two new teams to pick from in an expansion draft. The Raptors selected 14 players and the Grizzlies 13, one from every existing team.

What is in the CBA?

1. Existing teams receive a traded player exception equal to the salary of the player they lose in the expansion draft.

2. Expansion teams are able to cut any of the players that they drafted before the start of the season without them counting against the cap. The player is still paid.

Aging players making 35% of the salary cap are not typically what an expansion franchise should be looking for. Not without risk, there is some opportunity here to use expansion as a pseudo-amnesty clause. If the Suns were to line up their contracts to have nine or fewer players on roster at the time of expansion and left Booker unprotected, one of the expansion teams would be forced to take him.17

If that team then cut him, he would be an unrestricted free agent, able to sign with whatever team he wants. From everything I can find, this would include the Suns.

While Phoenix would no longer hold his Bird rights, perhaps Booker would be happy to return to The Valley on a lesser deal like the midlevel, considering he would still be making the max money extension that the Suns just gave him.

Pair that with a $64 million dollar trade exception if this expansion were to occur in the summer of 2028 and all of a sudden the Suns have their path to another star.

Nick Richards to Duck the Tax

Best Potential Partners: Boston, New Orleans

Okay, we’ve played around in my fantasy world long enough so let’s get back to a boring, but much more likely reality.

Celtics Receive: Nick Richards.18

Suns Receive: Chris Boucher.

Celtics Rationale: Luka Garza is currently the backup center for a team that might soon be the favorite to win the Eastern Conference. Having another center to try might not hurt.

Jordan Walsh and Josh Minott have emerged so Boucher has not played since November. Thoughts of trying to get under the tax this year are gone with how well Boston and, especially recently, Anfernee Simons have played.

Suns Rationale: In 50 games with Toronto last season, Boucher shot 36.3% from three on 10.8 attempts per 100 possessions. He had a 19.6% defensive rebound percentage, which would rank 20th for power forwards who have played 100 minutes this year.

Nick Richards has fallen out of the lineup and Phoenix has a more pressing need at power forward than center. The Suns should get under the tax with how close they are and this move gets them there.

Jordan Goodwin for Upside

Best Potential Partners: Cleveland, Houston, Minnesota, New York

Playoff series often require flexible rotations so I think there would be a lot of contenders interested in having Goodwin as a defensive and rebounding guard off the bench.

Knicks Receive: Jordan Goodwin.

Suns Receive: Pacome Dadiet. Washington’s 2027 second round pick (if Washington picks 1-8 in 2026)

Knicks Rationale: New York has plenty of guards (Brunson, McBride, Clarkson, Kolek) but not of this type. Goodwin could be a factor on a team looking to win a title.

Dadiet can’t crack the rotation and may get his fourth year option declined. For a team that flirts with the second apron, cutting a little money next year isn’t bad.

Pick-wise, best case scenario, Trey Young plays more than expected and with a little lottery luck the Knicks get Washington’s pick at #9 this year and the pick in this trade extinguishes.

Suns Rationale: Second draft guy. Give Dadiet a chance in a new environment and see what happens. What does it hurt for the Suns to have him for two years?

I’m going to bet against Washington until they prove me wrong. They tank this year and the obligation to New York becomes two second round picks. Maybe that 2027 ends up higher in the second round than you might think.

Goodwin has played the best ball of his career. At age 27, this is probably near his peak. No guarantee Phoenix could bring him back next year, nor should they try to at more than the minimum.

Sell High on Dillon Brooks

Best Potential Partners: Atlanta, Detroit, LA Lakers

As I said above, I think getting value for Dillon Brooks is a big deal. A reminder that only six months ago, Brooks was considered salary filler necessary for the Rockets to send out in order to acquire Kevin Durant.

Brooks’s play so far this season has been an outlier compared to the rest of his career as far as individual creation and shot efficiency, especially on two's away from the rim. It’s these types of opportunities, that will determine how quickly Phoenix can get back to being a real contender.

Pistons Receive: Dillon Brooks and Nigel Hayes-Davis

Suns Receive: Ron Holland, Caris LeVert, and Detroit’s 2026 First Round Pick.

Pistons Rationale: Detroit leans into their identity as a defensive terror, adding Brooks, who can flex between the two forward positions. He also adds a second side scoring option with some ability to shoot.

Holland and LeVert are playing the 7th and 8th most minutes for the Pistons but Jaden Ivey and/or Javonte Green can backfill those minutes as backend rotation guys. The pick will be late first round and Detroit is in win-now mode anyways.

Suns Rationale:

Phoenix gets below the tax with this move, picks up a young player with upside in Holland, and banks a first round pick in the upcoming draft in which they currently hold none. They likely try to flip this pick on draft night.

LeVert’s deal becomes an expiring contract next season and can be aggregated with others to make a subsequent deal if the Suns desire.

Buy! Buy! Buy!

Let’s play devil’s advocate here and look at what the Suns could do as buyers at this deadline. The play would be to flip Jalen Green or aggregate the salaries of Grayson Allen and Royce O’Neal to bring back a better player that makes up to $6.3 million more, as the Suns would be constrained by the first apron.

The problem is that Phoenix has no draft capital to attach. I see all three guys as pretty close to neutral value so you’re talking about bringing back a player that likely has issues of their own (cough, Ja, cough).

All three guys are under contract through next year and the Suns will have at least two first round picks to trade this summer, potentially a third if they find a taker for Brooks. Then, Phoenix might really be able to go hunting.

I still think that would be a rush job on a team that is not as close to contention as ownership would like to think, but I would prefer getting an expensive and really good player to making a move now for a moderately expensive and mediocre player.

2026 Offseason

If the Suns stay pat at the deadline, or only send and receive expiring contracts, here is what their cap table will look like on July 119, with Ighodaro almost definitely getting fully guaranteed (partial guarantee is why he shows in red):

With over $23 million of dead money on their books (Beal/Little/Liddell), they will be $21.6 million from the tax line and $28.7 million from the first apron. It’s pretty safe to say that the Suns are going to blow by both of those numbers. This is just the nature of returning your five highest paid players and then wanting to re-sign two other starters.

Unless they make some moves to lower costs, Phoenix is going to be dancing with the second apron in 2026-2027. That threshold is $41.5 million away. Here are some of the second apron restrictions:

• If the Suns finish the year above the second apron, their 2034 pick would be frozen. Maybe more importantly, if they went over again in either of the following two years, their 2032 pick would be moved to the end of the first round.

• If they are over, they can’t use or have used the taxpayer midlevel ($6.1 million).

• If they are over, they can’t aggregate or have aggregated contracts to bring back a larger contract.

While you can debate the priority of concern on these, I’m fairly confident the Suns are most concerned with the third.

If you assume that the Suns want to use the taxpayer MLE ($6.1 million) then fill out the roster with minimums (2 at $2.5 million each)20, there is about $30 million to use on Williams and Gillespie and still have a little bit of space. If it takes more than that, the Suns would need to send out enough money in any trade, to bring them back under the second apron with whoever they acquire.

Re-Signing Collin Gillespie

Gillespie spent two years in Denver on a two-way, before playing on a two-way in Phoenix last season. This year he signed for the minimum and the Suns hold his early Bird rights this summer.

With those, the Suns could offer Gillespie a four year deal, starting at 105% of the league annual salary, just under $15 million, with 8% raises. Total would be four years, $67 million.

Another team could offer the full non-taxpayer midlevel which would have a slightly (~$700k) higher first year, but be worth about $2 million less over the course of the deal due to only 5% raises. It’s also possible someone with cap space comes with a bigger offer. There may be other suitors, but Phoenix offers legitimate opportunity and things are working in The Valley.

Gillespie currently ranks 19th in EPM for guards. The 19th highest paid guard in average annual value (AAV) is Jalen Brunson at $39,137,281. The 38th is Alex Caruso at $20,274,240.

Even if the Suns gave him the max extension, his AAV would be only $17 million. I think Phoenix has to be willing to go to that, but it may be in both the team and Gillespie’s interest to do a shorter deal.

Austin Reeves got a 3+1 in a similar situation but in hindsight, would have preferred to get back on the market even quicker. This is another thing that gives the Suns an edge over other teams who would use the MLE and need three years to get him full Bird rights.

Both sides would argue to tack on an option; Gillespie with his current performance and the Suns with his limited history. The early bird exception requires two years so we could be talking a straight two year contract. If Gillespie prefers guaranteed money, maybe he’s willing to give a little back on a longer deal.

Result: 2 years, $31 million, no option ($14.9 million year one)

Mark Williams Restricted Free Agency

Williams was selected by the Charlotte Hornets with the 15th overall pick in the first round of the 2022 NBA Draft. The Suns traded for the big man, and thus hold his Bird rights.

With four years of service, Williams next contract could start at 25% of the salary cap and be for up to five years, with 8% raises. That would mean year one, around $41.5 million, and total 5 years, $240 million.

Williams is a starting-level center, but because he played only 106 of a possible 246 games in his first three years, is viewed as an injury risk and will have to concede some money in negotiations because of it. This was also likely to have been a major factor in him not agreeing to an extension last summer.

He is also a restricted free agent. The most another team could offer him up would be around $180 million over four years, but they need cap space to do it. I would rank him behind a number of other free agent centers, including, in no order, Mitchell Robinson, Jalen Duren, and Walker Kessler, the latter two also being RFA.21

That is to say, I think the Suns are in a pretty good position to negotiate here.

Williams currently ranks 19th in EPM for centers. The 19th highest paid center in average annual value (AAV) is Onyeka Okongwu at $15,495,000. Williams’s qualifying offer (QO) will be right around $14 million assuming he meets the starter criteria. I don’t think the Suns can offer much more than that to get him to accept a one year deal and essentially waive his QO no-trade.

Taking the QO is never a good thing for either side and since Phoenix gave up assets to get Williams, I’m thinking they are willing to come to a reasonable deal here. However, because Williams has a short track record due to injury, I think he will have to give up some value and/or accept a team option or non-guarantee.

Result: 3 years, $48 million, team option ($14.8 million year one)

Jordan Goodwin

Goodwin may end up being the odd man out in Phoenix. He has played well enough that multiple teams may be interested in acquiring his services for next season. However, I think most if not all will be offering the minimum. If that is the case, the Suns might look like the most attractive solution given his success this year.

In five years of NBA service, Goodwin’s career earnings total just under $5.7 million. While most competitive guys like to bet on themselves, securing multiple guaranteed years might be important to a guy that has bounced around the league.

If Phoenix is able to re-sign Gillespie and Williams at the numbers above, they would not necessarily need the veterans minimum to be at the 2-year service discount, which only applies to one year contracts.

Restricted free agency has run late into the summer for most players as of recent, so the Suns might not have a clear answer on Mark Williams for a while. But let’s say they take care of Goodwin and give him a two year minimum.

Result: 2 years, $6 million, no option ($2.9 million year one)

Taxpayer Midlevel

Only three teams used the TMLE in 2025-2026.22 Teams that use this exception basically get the cream of the crop vet minimums, but lock themselves into limited flexibility. I would only support going this route if the Suns were able to nab a difference making power forward.

Two guys at different points in their careers that I expect to be out of the Suns range but would be worth it are Kenrich Williams and Jeremy Sochan. Williams has a team option in Oklahoma City but could be a cap casualty. Meanwhile, Sochan’s time is San Antonio seems to have run its course.

Both guys would provide more rebounding and defense while getting a new opportunity. This could look like a prove-it contract, 2 years with a player option. The Suns would hope to build up their value and trade them at next year’s deadline.

If the Suns forego using the MLE, and sign a vet minimum instead, they will have another $3.5 million to spend elsewhere. They could use that towards that one-year deal for Williams if they can’t come to terms on a multi-year deal. They could also sign a 15th player at the minimum.

Result: No MLE used.

Draft

Phoenix does not hold a 2026 first round draft pick. As far as second rounders, they currently own the second most favorable of OKC, DAL and PHL (probably Philly).

With all the young talent on the team, there may not be a ton of space on the NBA roster. I’d prefer for the Suns to come to an agreement to take a player that is willing to go on a two-way and see how it goes from there. Upside is more important than if they can play immediately.

Long-Term Outlook

You’ll notice the trade deadline and free agency sections conflict. The former suggests trading anyone not tied down and the latter suggests running it back with mostly the same team. That’s pretty much the cap situation that the Suns are stuck in.

If they have dreams of aggregating the contracts of Green, Brooks, Allen, and O’Neale in some manner to bring back a star, I’m dubious. Because they are over the first apron, they will have to send out more money than they get back in any trade.

That likely means three of those four guys would have to go out if you are talking about a marquee star and then they’re right back to where they were with Booker and Durant and not enough around them. If they package two guys to go get a fringe all-star, they’re probably still not good enough at the top.

It’s not my money but history shows that owners do not like spending year after year for non-contenders. Suns owner Mat Ishbia has indicated that is fine with him, but even more so than the aprons, the 2023 CBA made the repeater tax a beefed-up deterrent to continued spending.

The Suns are too expensive for guys that would be great bench players on a championship roster, all but Brooks under contract through 2028. While this year has been exciting and fun, I worry it will actually set the Suns even farther back in the long run if they try to double down on what they currently have.

Assuming Booker stays, I’d like to see a 2027-2028 roster with Gillespie, Booker, Dunn, Fleming, Williams, Ighodaro, and Maluach in the rotation. Jalen Green is the wild card. If he gets back healthy and pops in the next year plus, that would be a huge boon. Otherwise, the Suns should be targeting additional guards and wings.

Anyone else currently on the roster should be on the trade block, trying to bring back expiring deals to get costs down, along with picks. Do that enough times, and good things can happen.

Subscribe now

Appendix

Short Rolls

I came away from the game against Arizona State unsure if the narrative should be more about the Wildcats or the Sun Devils. The game was disjointed with stretches of physical play alternating with stretches of ticky-tack fouls on both sides. Koa Peat played his worst half of the year then came out of the locker room and played perhaps his best half of the year.

After rewatch, I think ASU deserves a lot of credit. Firstly, they were up for the physicality. This is requisite in a game versus Arizona. If you aren’t going in to the game ready for a battle, you’ve lost before it’s even began. Second, they made a ton of shots. Noah Meeusen hit four threes and Moe Odum had four of his own plus a slew of tough tweener shots.

As far as something that might matter going forward, I’m going to highlight another player, Massamba Diop. The Sun Devil freshmen is an interesting prospect. He is pretty raw but I could see him becoming an NBA player. He finished 7-9 from two against Arizona.

One reason for his success was his lack of hard rolls to the basket. I know, that seems backwards. Most centers attack drop coverage by flying to the rim, looking for the lob, while their defender temporarily has to cover two players. The Wildcats, especially Motiejus Krivas, are excellent at defending this action.

Diop instead used a lot of short rolls, slipping into open space, then hitting little jumpers or creating his own shots.

Not many teams will play a center with the touch to be successful in this strategy. But if they do, the Wildcats might need to adjust their coverage. Krivas’s foul trouble in the second half, allowed the Cats to cover ballscreens closer to the level of the ball with Awaka or Peat, rather than the deep drop.

While Arizona has had Krivas hedge on occasion, drop is certainly the preferred coverage. If the Wildcats stayed with that, the three defenders not involved in the screen could overload and bring more pressure to the short roller on the catch, allowing Krivas to stay at the rim and/or giving him time to recover to his man. That would cause some scramble and potentially leave open shooters, but maybe you mix it in to keep the offense guessing.

This isn’t much different than covering someone who will pick and pop.

If the screener is anything but a “red” shooter1, someone should be rotating to or at least stunting at Jamichael Stillwell, who is shooting 33% on 1.5 threes per game so far this season. In this case, neither Ivan Kharchenkov nor Brayden Burries make any effort to affect the shot and Stillwell knocks it down.

Same logic applies as above: if one of those guys closes hard on the passing lane between their man and the ball, it would force Stillwell to drive where his original defender is now standing or to try to swing a pass against the rotating defense.

Unappealing

In the first season of the coaches challenge, the more pervasive replay has been the appeal for a flagrant foul. ASU appealed in the first half looking for a flagrant on Krivas, who’s hand got into the face of his defender while he was being held in the post. The Sun Devils lost the appeal and were charged a timeout.

In the Central Florida game, the officials first went to the monitor to review a Brayden Burries foul after multiple coaches and then Themus Fulks requested it

Replay showed Burries making fairly minor contact to the shooter’s arm and no contact to the head or neck. Referee Gregory Nixon then announced “Upon further review, there is no appeal on the play” Huh?

There either was or was not an appeal before they went to the monitor. In this case, the referees essentially said they chose to go to the monitor of their own volition. That did not sit well with Coach Lloyd.

UCF later officially appealed for another flagrant foul, this time on Jaden Bradley, and lost that one, costing them their final timeout of the game.

Flop!!!

I wish the officials had gone to monitor to review this malicious attack by Koa Peat (sarcasm).

As I said when the Heady brothers tried the free throw switch for Bethune-Cookman, I can respect a little bit of angle shooting. But not this. Former Sun Devil, Devan Cambridge, tried to draw a phantom dead ball foul on Peat.

Per Rule 10, Section 4, Article 1p:

A technical foul shall be assessed to a player or a substitute for…faking being fouled (flopping) is an unsporting act that occurs when a player (offensive or defensive) attempts to influence an official’s judgment by creating an opinion that a foul has been committed when there has been minimal contact.

Cambridge tried this right in front of Referee James Ford, who saw exactly what happened and did not call a foul on Peat. Nor did he call a T for flopping on Cambridge.

Cutaways

I generally find it annoying when TV producers repeatedly switch cameras, especially when they miss game action.2 But for whatever reason, I was enamored on Saturday. Both coaching staffs were demonstrative, players were chirping at one another, and referees were trying their best to explain what they thought they saw.

Enjoy the compilation of some moments the cameras caught.3 I strongly encourage someone to record a Bad Lip Reading audio track over it.

Subscribe now

Next up: Home versus Cincinnati on Wednesday, January 21st, 7:00PM MST.

What’s Not to Love

Evan Miyakawa posted soon after the Wolverines loss but just before tipoff of the Cats game against the Horned Frogs.

Consistent is right. Arizona is just rock solid right now. It says a lot when a game is “edge of your seat” worthy because the lead is hovering around 10. When a team is this good, it can start to seem less impressive as each game goes by. I have been trying to remind myself to enjoy every minute of it. Here’s some things I have loved in the last two games:

Braden Burries Defensive Improvement

Burries rebounding has been a topic recently1 but his defense is quietly his biggest leap. After the Utah game, Burries was asked about how he was being guarded and instead answered about how is guarding:2

“I just felt like at the beginning of the year, I was like a little new to new to this. In high school I didn’t really guard guards. So when I got to college, I started learning a little techniques, and I’m still learning to this day. And Coach is just like, he’s on me. I just feel like I’m getting better and better by the game.”

This makes a ton of sense. Burries certainly has the body to cover forwards, especially at the high school level. And while he has been decent on the ball, I think navigating off ball actions (e.g., chasing guards around multiple screens) is something that took some getting used to. That’s why I’ve been so encouraged to see his extra effort recently. Burries even gets rewarded with the dunk after his pass denial leads to a Bradley steal in the third clip.

Defensive Synergy

Arizona’s defense sits fourth in the nation according to KenPom, but they keep getting better.

We covered Arizona’s offensive use of Spain PnR sets versus San Diego State. This is a common action that many teams use. Arizona first saw this on the defensive end in their exhibition game versus Embry-Riddle and had mixed results trying to switch the action.

A few months later, check out how smooth the switches are with Krivas identifying and dropping back early to let the defender of the backscreening guard get up to take the ball handler. Just beautiful.

Interestingly, Krivas was not dropping, but hedging against TCU’s Iverson Series. Look how far Dwayne Aristode and Ivan Kharchenkov come to tag Krivas’s man rolling, with the backside defender (Awaka/Peat) splitting the distance between two men on the weakside. Everyone is communicating and moving together on a string.

Motiejus Krivas Verticality

Krivas is averaging just under two blocks per game, yet advanced analytics rate him as one of the best defenders in the country. Why?

None of the plays in the clips below show up in the box score (i.e., not blocks) but they all stopped the Horned Frogs from scoring. The best way to attack Krivas is downhill with a head of steam. Players who try to finesse their way around him are at a severe disadvantage.

Koa Peat Rim Runs

Okay, that’s enough defensive talk, lets talk offense.

Outsiders might think Coach Lloyd’s two big system is plodding but any big men that play at Arizona must run the floor. See where Peat is on the shot in the second clip? Watch his first three steps in which he passes two TCU players and is well on his way to being the first man down the floor.

Jaden Bradley “45 Cuts”

Bradley excels at recognizing where there is opportunity to cut once the ball goes into the post area. These 45 cuts, where Bradley starts on the wing and cuts behind the defenders into the paint both open up shots for himself and passes to others by making the defense collapse. A small thing but so valuable.

Late Clock Snipers

I thought it was great for Anthony Dell’Orso to end up with the ball in his hands with the shot clock draining early against TCU. For a shooter thats been slumping, it’s kind of great to get one where you don’t have time to think about it and just have to fire. Same thing happened late in the game.

Not to be outdone, Koa Peat had three baskets of his own creation go down with 10 or less on the shot clock. While I don’t always love some of the contested midrange jumpers at other points in the clock, it is really nice to have a guy that you know can get a decent shot off at any time.

And of course, Jaden Bradley, The Closer, was as clutch as ever knocking down one tough shot after another late.

BLOB Watch

If you haven’t had a chance, here’s another shameless plug to view my breakdown of Arizona’s baseline out of bounds plays.

Against TCU, Arizona had seven BLOB opportunities and ran almost exclusively triangle (screen the screener) and high cut, double screen actions. They got Koa Peat open on an early triangle set, but continue to settle for midrange jumpers on a couple of others. This was a criticism I had in my breakdown of both of these plays.

Meanwhile, against Kansas State, Arizona used a play that I had not seen this year, starting with four high and then X’ing back to back pairs. My guess is that this was a counter to K-State’s matchup zone type defense on ball out underneath. A reminder that Arizona struggled earlier this year against Florida, who played it similarly.

Use It or Lose It

NCAA rules give teams four timeouts per game but one of those must be used in the first half or else it is lost. Arizona has lost eight time outs in the 16 games it has played. Most of those were in blowouts, but also included games against UCONN and San Diego State, which were close at the half.

Of the nine first half timeouts taken3, five have occurred with less than 40 seconds remaining for the Cats final offensive possession, including against both of the last two opponents.4

I’m thoroughly team Trust in Tommy, but he may be being a little too conservative with his timeouts.5 This seemed like a good time to bring it up since Arizona went scoreless against TCU from 6:30 to 2:00 left without intervention.

Two For One

As long as we are talking end of half, the Wildcats don’t appear to be a team that believes much in trying to take advantage of two for one opportunities.

Analytics would tell you that getting two medium quality shots is better than trying to get one good shot and therefore it is optimal if you can get a quick look with 40-45 seconds left and then get the ball back for an extra possession6. However, some coaches worry that they will end up with two bad shots trying to execute the optimal.

Arizona had great opportunities to push the ball for such a look after baskets by Utah and Kansas State with 51 and 57 seconds left, respectfully. In both cases, they chose to walk the ball up the floor instead.

Don’t Look Now

Let’s close with Jaden Bradley channeling Steph Curry with this dribble-back three and the look-away to the bench before the splash. I see you Chef Jaden.

Subscribe now

Next up: Home versus “the team from up north” on Wednesday, January 14th, 8:30PM MST.

Pro Players in College

Who is eligible to play college basketball is a question that is becoming increasingly murky. With the advent of NIL, high school age players that had been paid to play in leagues like Overtime Elite, were now able to join college programs.

Another league (or team) of interest around that time was G League Ignite, a professional developmental team created by the NBA in 2020 to give elite prospects a college alternative. It was a slippery slope from there to ask how come other G League players couldn’t join an NCAA team; however, until now, they had all gone undrafted.

After being drafted by the Knicks, Nnaji returned to Spain in 2024 to play for FC Barcelona. Of course, nothing about that would make him ineligible; see Ivan Kharchenkov, formerly of FC Bayern Munich. Nnaji was a contender for a roster spot with the Knicks this season, but after a poor performance at NBA Summer League, he remained unsigned.

That is the distinction the NCAA is now drawing with NCAA president Charlie Baker stating that “The NCAA has not and will not grant eligibility to any prospective or returning student-athletes who have signed an NBA contract (including a two-way contract)”, in response to reports that Trentyn Flowers was drawing interest from college teams.

Flowers is currently on a two-way contract with the Chicago Bulls, and has appeared in 8 NBA games. A two-way pays him half the rookie minimum, around $636,435, which may be less than some NCAA programs would provide.

But why? Why draw the line there? What is different about an NBA contract from a G League Contract or a European Contract? The NCAA has tried to put it’s foot down before and usually ended up losing in court. My guess would be if Flowers were to sue, he would win.

The next line in the sand would be players that had already played in college and left for the draft. The NCAA is on better footing here as there are additional rules about when players must declare or withdraw their name from a draft in order to maintain eligibility.

Plus, to challenge that rule in court, a player would have to leave college, go to the draft, give up their eligibility, and then sue to get it back.1 That’s a big risk for a lot of college players who could just stay in college in the first place and earn good money. You would need a player that thought they were a surefire first round pick, slipped, and somehow went unsigned.

So for now, only players who have never played college basketball are the ones to watch. However, there is one of those that has a pretty strong connection to the Arizona Men’s Basketball Program.

We now live in a world where it is not inconceivable that LeBron James plays for the University of Arizona.

As James nears the end of his NBA career, we know how important it was for him to play with Bronny. The only thing standing in the way of him playing alongside Bryce is one Trentyn Flowers lawsuit. Or heck, maybe one from James himself.

For what it’s worth, Tommy Lloyd was asked about this whole mess last week (not the LeBron part). YouTube Link.

On the ever changing world of college basketball2: “It’s so crazy right now, you know? The only thing that I would say is frustrating is you just don’t know what direction things are coming from. You just try to coach your team. It’s not a compliance issue. Why doesn’t everybody know what’s going to be allowed and what’s not going to be allowed. Why are we surprised by things? Maybe that’s my fault for having my head in the sand and not being on social media. I could admit that it could be my fault. I think it should be a little more obvious what is going to be allowed and not allowed. If you’re talking about a real level playing field, let’s start with that. A couple years ago they said double transfers weren’t going to be eligible. So we literally had a guy in the NCAA office sit in my office tell us, don’t recruit double transfers. This is in the summer. They’re not going to be eligible. They’re going to deny all the waivers. Okay, we didn’t recruit double transfers. Well, that January, all the double transfers got eligible everywhere. So, like, there’s just literally no credibility, and it sucks. But you know what? I’m excited about Arizona basketball. I’m excited about playing at Utah on Saturday, and I’m not going to be a spokesperson for any of this stuff. So I’m done talking about it. I want to be a quote on Arizona basketball, and what we have going right now. Let’s stay locked into the main thing, Arizona basketball, and Arizona football winning the Holiday Bowl. That’s as good as deep as I can go in my rolodex right now.”

Offensive Adjustment Incoming?

Arizona used seven possessions late versus Utah to essentially practice new offense, specifically a 1-3 pick and roll. While the Wildcats typically run offense through their four and five man, they spent five minutes having Ivan Kharchenkov sprint into rush-out screens, to varying levels of success.

With the center (Krivas or Awaka), in the opposite slot or wing, this functioned similarly to the double drag they use with Burries or more-often Dell’Orso as the first screener. The Cats always ran this left to right, towards the ball handler’s (Bradley or Burries) dominant hand.

The adjustment that Utah didn’t make would have been to move the defender covering Koa Peat into more help. Perhaps, that would allow a direct pass to him in a stampede to the rim, but I think you could prevent both.

The adjustment to the adjustment would be to run this in a three guard lineup and let Dell’Orso be the man the defense has to help off of. Of course, then it’s no longer a 1-3 PnR.

Arizona Rotation Contingencies

Arizona has played a set of eight guys through the competitive portions of the 14 games played so far. Point guard, Evan Nelson, and center, Sidi Gueye, have been numbers nine and ten, but neither have gotten more than ten minutes in a game yet this year, even amongst this streak of blowouts. Here’s how each player’s minutes have broken down so far:

Guards

Jaden Bradley (28.1 MPG - 100% PG)

Brayden Burries (27.1 MPG - 30% PG, 70% SG)

Anthony Dell’Orso (23.1 MPG - 82% SG, 18% SF)

Wings

Dwayne Aristode (16.9 MPG - 2% SG, 94% SF, 4% PF)

Ivan Kharchenkov (24.4 MPG - 77% SF, 23% PF)

Bigs

Koa Peat (27.1 MPG - 99% PF, 1% C)

Tobe Awaka (20.3 MPG - 31% PF, 69% C)

Motiejus Krivas (23.0 MPG - 100% C)

With this tight of a rotation, it’s good to review the level of replication at each position. The Wildcats have mostly stayed injury free so far,3 but let’s look at what a backup plan might look like for each player, from most to least replaceable.

Anthony Dell’Orso (23.1 MPG - 82% SG, 18% SF)

Dell’Orso was integral to the Wildcats first five wins, showing improved defensive chops, and providing much needed outside shooting. But he has gone colder since, and is only shooting 32.8% from three on the season.

The minutes played at SF, and even some at SG, could be absorbed by Aristode. The Wildcats could also use Evan Nelson at PG in the non-Bradley stints, keeping Brayden Burries at SG.

Estimate: Nelson +8min, Bradley +4min, Burries +4min, Aristode +7min

Tobe Awaka (20.3 MPG - 31% PF, 69% C)

It seems sacrilegious to put the best rebounder in the country this high on the list, but there is just more positional depth here to cover his absence than there are at other spots. Not to mention that Krivas, Kharchenkov, and recently Burries are showing out as plus rebounders for their positions.

The PF minutes would go to Kharchenkov and Aristode, in more small-ball lineups, likely with Krivas at center, who would need to up his minutes some as well. When Krivas goes to the bench, the Cats would be looking at a mix of Sidi Gueye and Koa Peat at center.

Arizona has not experimented much with the latter, but it might be worth trying some here in January.

Estimate: Gueye +8min, Krivas +4min, Kharchenkov +2min, Aristode +6min

Dwayne Aristode (16.9 MPG - 2% SG, 94% SF, 4% PF)

Aristode plays the least minutes of the eight rotation players but the small forward position is where the Wildcats have the least options. The triple big lineup has combined for 17 seconds of action so far, so that’s probably not going to be an option.

The triple guard lineup could be though. Bradley, Burries, and Dell’Orso have shared the floor for just over 51 minutes so far, and are +36 in that time.

Estimate: Nelson +5min, Bradley +2min, Burries +2min, Dell’Orso +4min, Kharchenkov +4min

Koa Peat (27.1 MPG - 99% PF, 1% C)

I know. Hear me out. How could the leading scorer and second leading minutes getter be the most replaceable starter?

Again, it’s back to positional scarcity. Peat plays nearly all of his minutes at power forward, a role that could be backfilled by three of the remaining seven players.

This would be a “by committee” type effort and would give a plethora of options to explore. It’s possible you would see all seven players minutes go up, plus possible room for Nelson and Gueye, who could stagger a single stint each in the first half

Estimate: Nelson +4min, Dell’Orso +2min, Kharchenkov +2min, Aristode +7min, Awaka +6min, Krivas +2min, Gueye +4min

Brayden Burries (27.1 MPG - 30% PG, 70% SG)

This starts to get into the land of real trouble. Burries has been red hot lately and losing that momentum would be a huge hit.

However, the Cats could cover the SG minutes with three different guys and slide Nelson in for a stint early in each half. Would badly need Dell’Orso to return to form and Aristode to take a step forward.

Estimate: Nelson +8min, Bradley +4min, Dell’Orso +4min, Kharchenkov +4min, Aristode +7min

Ivan Kharchenkov (24.4 MPG - 77% SF, 23% PF)

Other than Aristode, Kharchenkov is the only other Wildcat not scoring in double figures. The Cats would feel his loss more on the defensive end, where he has become their premier perimeter defender.

And like I said in the Aristode section above, small forward is the least replaceable position on this roster. Even if Aristode pops with this opportunity, he likely only covers a third to half of the gap created by a Kharchenkov absence.4

Estimate: Nelson +8min, Bradley +2min, Burries +2min, Dell’Orso +4min, Aristode +8min

Jaden Bradley (28.1 MPG - 100% PG)

Bradley is the heart and soul of this team, so certainly there are some intangible effects to not having him out there, not to mention that he leads the Wildcats in three point field goal percentage, free throws made, and assists.

I think you would see a shift downward here. Burries plays Bradley’s role, Nelson picks up the Burries backup point guard minutes, Dell’Orso and Aristode play more at shooting guard, and hold on for dear life.

Estimate: Nelson +8min, Burries +4min, Dell’Orso +4min, Aristode +8min, Kharchenkov +4min

Motiejus Krivas (23.0 MPG - 100% C)

This would be a “you didn’t know what you had until it’s gone” situation. Krivas’s defensive rating of 83.5 points per 40 minutes is better than any team in the country.

Bradley also ranks extremely highly in defensive metrics, but I have some faith that Burries could rise to the occasion. Meanwhile, the Peat/Awaka minutes continue to show some cracks defensively, with a defensive rating of 106.2 points per 40 minutes.

Sidi Gueye would definitely get some run here. If he could provide any semblance of the rim protection that Krivas does, it would be a huge success. Coach Lloyd was quoted telling Gueye that he expected him to be ready to play in big games by January.

You would also be looking at something like 14 minutes of Koa Peat at center per game, where he has played a total of 3 minutes so far this season. In this scenario, Arizona would have to fundamentally change some of how they play.

Estimate: Gueye +8min, Awaka +4min, Peat +2min, Kharchenkov +2min, Aristode +7min

Subscribe now

Next up: Home versus Kansas State on Wednesday, January 7th, 7:00PM MST.

Offensive Sets

Arizona’s base offense is a flow motion set that runs through the posts. However, late in games, after timeouts, and sometimes after opponent free throws, the Cats will come out and run a more set play.

In the second half against San Diego State, the Wildcats went away from their base offense more then any other game so far this year. Here is a stretch of plays in the second half that were more of the set type offense:

Spain Pick-And-Roll (13:51, 13:37, 8:48, 8:34)

This is the first time I’ve seen Arizona use this action this year. Essentially, this is a middle ball screen that adds a third player setting a backscreen on the defender of the original screener. Spain PnR is effective because it causes some confusion for the defense on who has responsibility to contain the ball handler.

In these clips, Jaden Bradley is very good at his change of speed, getting defenders off balance in a way that has caused me to make comparisons in his game to that of Jalen Brunson. The Wildcats end up drawing three fouls on four possessions with this action.

I also liked Anthony Dell’Orso ghosting the screen in the fourth and final clip here, leaving him wide open at the three point line.

Double Drag (12:23, 9:36)

The Wildcats also used Dell’Orso as a ball screener in a double drag ball screen. In the first clip, the ball comes back to him as a second creator, but the play runs even better in the second clip with the swing to Dwayne Aristode, which triggers the weakside post, Tobe Awaka, to flare screen Dell’Orso for a three.

Double Pin Down (11:57, 10:35)

Dell’Orso also got a flare three out of this set that the Cats ran twice, which is similar to floppy or loop action. And as in the drag action, it was less effective when the ball went to Dell’Orso directly in the second clip below.

Flex (6:28)

The Wildcats regularly run Flex (screen the screener) action. This is a classic base set that holds a special place in my heart as one of the offenses my high school team ran. It has been around forever. Here’s a good explanation along with an additional explainer video.

Arizona sets their flex action up with a post ball screen and pop. On the pass back, they use zoom action to “swing” the ball, triggering a shuffle cut for the other post. The wing then would come up off that shuffle screen, where they would play two man with the post on their side.

In this clip, Ivan Kharchenkov’s screen got Tobe Awaka open on the shuffle, so no more action was needed.

UCLA Post Iso (4:08, 2:44)

And finally, with the game secure, the Cats went to a 4-high look that I had yet to seen them use before. After pindowns on each side and a point guard UCLA cut through, the pass to the ballside post along with a dive from the weakside post clear the path for an iso opportunity for Tobe Awaka (clip 1) and Koa Peat (clip 2), with a Kharchenkov improvised backdoor in the latter set.

Challenge Watch!

Coach Lloyd now 3-0 on the season overturning out of bounds calls!

Ejection

The rulebook grants officials a lot of latitude to decide what is or isn’t a technical foul but I’m going to take the unpopular position that the two technicals issued to Mabil Mawut were likely warranted.

There is no mention in the rulebook of bench personnel distracting shooters but even standing in this situation could be deemed a Class B technical foul under Rule 10, Section 4, Article 2e.

Mawut not only stands but steps along the baseline to a point that you have to question if he was in the peripheral vision of Bethune-Cookman’s Tyler Andrews.

However, Class B technicals carry a penalty of only one free throw, as opposed to Class A technicals, where two free throws are awarded. When all was said and done, four free throws were shot as a result of the two T’s, meaning both were Class A. Presumably then, this technical was based on Rule 10, Section 3, Article 2d

Bench personnel committing an unsportsmanlike act including, but not limited to…Taunting or baiting an opponent.

Perhaps that is the way that NCAA officials have been instructed to handle this situation2 but the irony is not lost on me that Andrews is clearly taunting the U of A bench as official, Michael Greenstein, walks past him to point out Mawut.

And here is the closeup of the bench and the events that resulted in the second technical foul.

It's unclear what exactly Mawut said, but you can see both Sidi Gueye and Evan Nelson react with a hand signal to urge Mawut to stop.3

Tony Padilla was the official on the baseline but it appears to be Greenstein that comes back to issue the second technical, indicating whatever Mawut said was loud enough for him to hear as he was walking towards the table to report the first foul.

Flagrants

One of the things you ask for from officials is consistency and I think they have generally done a good job on these types of fouls. Essentially the interpretation is that a player is responsible for making sure his elbows don’t hit opponents in the head.

The first play both elbows contact the opponent’s head and the foul was ruled a flagrant 1. The second play they don’t and it wasn’t.

When you have guys like Krivas and Awaka, who has two flagrant fouls of his own this year, I think you accept that you are going to get some of these.

And since we hit on Class B technical fouls earlier, one is spelled out very clearly, Rule 10, Section 4, Article 1c:

A technical foul shall be assessed to a player or a substitute for…

Knowingly attempting a free throw to which the player is not entitled4

The man you see being elbowed in the face is Quentin Heady, career 63.2% free throw shooter. But the man that went to the line and even attempted a first free throw is his brother, Jakobi Heady, career 77.8% free throw shooter.

As someone who got away with this free throw stealing tactic 10-15 times in my high school career, I appreciate the Heady brothers attempt here but trying to do so after a review seems extra ballsy. Also, if you’re going to do that, you’ve got to make the free throws.

Jakobi missed the first before officials intervened and waived off the attempt but did not penalize Jakobi.5 Quentin then stepped up and made both.

Intentional Foul

Remember when I praised the consistency in the previous section? Well, throw that out the window. The broadcast relayed that this foul was an “intentional foul”, although NCAA Men’s does not have that as a rule, so I’m guessing this was a Flagrant 1. But why?

Appreciation Section

Jaden Bradley

Bradley had a season-high 10 assists against South Dakota State including these two setups back-to-back.

Bradley is still over 50% from three on the year, now 52.4% on 1.6 attempts per game. He’s also hit two of these shot fake, side step, threes in the last week. He just keeps pulling things out of the bag.

Ivan Kharchenkov

I just enjoy watching this guy play. Enjoy his use of the ballside hand in the passing lane to create a deflection and steal.

And up 30 with 6 minutes to go, he’s picking up his man at half court, knocking the ball loose, and diving on the floor after it.

Koa Peat

Peat hit is first career three pointer in this game,6 but more importantly, just continues to physically dominate.

Dell’Orso/Burries/Aristode

Just for fun…

Baseline Out-of-Bounds (BLOB)

If you haven’t already, check out the video I recently made illustrating the BLOB plays that Arizona has run thus far this season. This is a more advanced breakdown than you get in these articles.

Here is a good look the Wildcats got vs South Dakota State in their box-pop-double set:

Subscribe now

Next up: at Utah on Saturday, January 3rd, 2:00PM MST.

Something to appreciate about this team is how prepared they come to handle business every night. It would be difficult to pick out what has been their “worst” game so far this season. Arizona has not only won but beat the spread in most games this season. Only 26, 35, and 30 point wins against Utah Tech, NAU, and Denver failed to do so, primarily because the Cats got up too early too fast.

But the Wildcats have room to get even better…

Arizona’s Shot Profile Through Ten Games

As mentioned in a previous post, rate statistics like 3PAr, stabilize quicker that success metrics, like 3P%. In this case, “stabilize” means the stat will be more based on the signal than the noise. Here is a NBA stabilization chart created by Kostya Medvedovsky, creator of the metric DARKO.

Quick things to note:

1. 3PAr stabilizes in less than four games, the quickest of any stat in this chart. You can tell whether a team wants to shoot threes or not very quickly.

2. Offensive 3P% takes over 68 games to stabilize. Even at the end of the college season, it is very possible that a team’s three point percentage was significantly lucky or unlucky.

3. Defensive 3P% is a crazy amount of luck.1 This is maybe the most surprising to non-stathead basketball fans. It is extremely difficult to make an opponent miss threes. Teams can try to not allow them if that is part of their defensive strategy but once they are being taken, it is really up to the shooter and the gods if it goes in, not the defender.

As has been well documented, Arizona’s 3PAr is near the lowest in Division 1. But something I do not hear discussed enough is where those shots are being reallocated.

Below are charts of Arizona’s proportion of attempts by region, broken down by the five games versus ranked opponents and the five games against other opponents.2 The +/- numbers are the difference compared to national averages for high-major teams.

Against lower level opponents, Arizona passes up three point attempts in favor of getting shots at the rim. That’s great. But against tougher opponents, Arizona is mostly reallocating those looks into an increased number of midrange looks. That’s maybe a little more concerning.

On the bright side, other than corner threes, Arizona is shooting above average in each of these zones. Whether that is signal or noise will take some more time to suss out.

Takeaways:

• In Quad 1+2 games, Arizona has shot 26-75 (1.04 points per shot) from behind the arc and 59-132 (0.89) from two away from the rim.3

• For Quad 1+2 games, the high major average of shot attempts from two away from the rim per three point shot is 0.66. Arizona’s is 1.76.

Player Specific Shot Breakdown

If you are curious who is taking those long twos, the answer is pretty much everyone. Only Dwayne Aristode takes a smaller proportion (20.0%) of those twos than the national average (26.7%). That would certainly make one consider if this trend is scheme related.

However, two players stand out: Jaden Bradley (56.1% of attempts) and Koa Peat (66.1%). This matches the eye test as I’m sure anyone who has watched a Wildcats game this year can picture either of those players pulling up and nailing a jumper.4

Peat does not have the range to step out to the three line yet. He has only attempted four on the season and I think its fair to say whichever NBA team drafts him will do so knowing that part of his game will be a project.

But as a potential lottery pick that does his work inside the arc, it is a yellow flag that he is below the forward average at getting to the rim.

Bradley, on the other hand, has been an excellent, albeit resistant three point shooter.5 Actually, looking at the field goal percentages, he has been a good shooter everywhere.

In theory, the best value shots in basketball are at the rim and beyond the arc.6 But it’s easier said than done to “take more of those”. Sometimes the in-between looks are all that are available. And it’s nice to have guys like Peat and Bradley that are better than average when they have to take them.

However, any time one of those shots is taken, there should be an evaluation if there was a better opportunity.

If you look at the “midrange 2s” column, even though Arizona has four players at or above their positional national average, the shooting percentages are still not high enough to justify those shots except in late clock situations. The “In The Paint 2s” might be acceptable for Peat and Bradley, but seeing Burries, Krivas, Kharchenvok, and Awaka combine for 42 points on 54 attempts is noteworthy.

Arizona has been dominate so far through ten games. But there is still room to improve. As shooting percentages start to stabilize, the picture of the Wildcats’s optimal shot diet will become even more clear. And scarily for the rest of the country, the Cats can still become more efficient.

Next up: Neutral (Phoenix) vs San Diego State on Saturday, December 20th, 8:30PM MST.

Are the Crimson Tide the best team the Cats have played? Probably, not. But the contrasting styles the two teams play meant there was more room for variability.

Through a half of basketball, all of the questions that permeated the pregame discourse seemed relevant. And then, very quickly in the second half, they could all be brushed off.

First Half (Alabama 41 Arizona 39)

In press conferences leading up to this game, both Coach Lloyd and Anthony Dell’Orso were asked if there would be pressure on the Cats to match Alabama from behind the arc.1 Both essentially said absolutely not and that Arizona would play it’s typical style.

Then Arizona shot 17 three pointers in the first half, the same as Alabama.

Similar to how UCLA guarded Arizona earlier in the year, Alabama packed the paint and dared the Wildcats to beat them from long range. Brayden Burries said after the game that he was surprised that defenders kept closing out short on him.

So, were the Wildcats forcing or taking what the defense was giving them? Judge for yourself in this supercut of all first half attempts, without seeing make or miss.

Other than Dell’Orso’s last second shot at the end of the half, I struggle to find any that are terrible forces and I would call nine of the attempts “you have to take that” opportunities. For the record, here are the five that went in.2

Arizona’s 5-17 3FG was equivalent to 0.88 points per shot. While not lighting the world on fire, it was better than the 0.72 points they got per two-point shot (9-25).

Arizona should expect to see more teams throw this type of defense at them, especially when they appear to be at a disadvantage inside. I intend to have a breakdown of the Wildcat’s shot profile in the next article.

Second Half (Arizona 57 Alabama 34)

At 16:58 with Arizona leading by four, Jaden Bradley picked up his third foul, joining Koa Peat, who also had three personals, on the bench. Those two returned at 10:41 with Arizona leading 67-51.

Alabama coach Nate Oats was asked postgame why he chose not to take a timeout during that stretch and said he didn’t have anything to tell his team other than to play harder.3 Much of the focus was on the rebound differential (28-13 in the second half) but I think both of these topics start with Alabama’s offense.

Unlike the first half, the Crimson Tide offense looked stagnant and resorted to a lot of isolation, leading to contested shots, and balls that are difficult to offensively rebound since all defenders are more lined up in iso than against a lot of off-ball movement.

They tallied only 4 assists compared to 9 turnovers, 7 of which were live ball turnovers, allowing the Wildcats to get out and run and everything just flowed much more smoothly, leading to good looks.

It also helped that Brayden Burries got hot as the sun for a stretch.

Fun Bonus

Two Ivan Kharchenkov saves by poking the ball back into open space for his teammates to push in transition.

Motiejus Krivas Love

A lot has been made of Koa Peat hitting the ground running as a freshmen or of Jaden Bradley’s improvement as a scorer to compliment his steady point guard play. Braden Burries is finding his rhythm after Anthony Dell’Orso carried some of the wing scoring through the first five games. I have happily pointed out the little things that Ivan Kharchenkov does that matter to a winning team and Tobe Awaka may be the best rebounder in college basketball.

Motiejus Krivas is the most important player on this team.

Krivas recorded his first career double-double in this game, finishing with 14 points and 14 rebounds. Some would say he should do that every night. When you are 7’2”, sometimes the expectations are unfair. Here are seven of those rebounds that could have gone either way, had Krivas not given extra effort to track a rebound from a distance or to outmuscle an opponent.

The Wildcats are better at nearly everything, some things substantially, when Krivas is on the floor. His defensive rating4 is 86.4. The best team defensive rating in the country is 87.3. His net rating is 41.5. The best team net rating in the country is 39.8.

Comparing the big combos defensive ratings (lower is better):

• Krivas/Peat without Awaka: 87.6.

• Krivas/Awaka without Peat: 82.1.

• Awaka/Peat without Krivas: 112.6.

Appeals

Well, I learned something on Saturday. In addition to the calls that are challengeable, coaches can “appeal” to officials to perform a review of another set of calls. Here’s a list of what can be appealed. Officials reserve the right to review these of their own volition, but coaches can ask them to do so as well.

Previously, I thought this to be informal but apparently not. If a coach appeals for an official review, and the call stands, their team is charged a timeout.5 This seems confusingly similar to a challenge, especially when the ESPN graphics and announcers were referring to Nate Oats’s appeal for a Krivas flagrant foul as a challenge.6

However, coaches can appeal an unlimited number of calls in a game. Oats successfully appealed a later call, resulting in Awaka being assigned a Flagrant 1 foul.

Here is the language from the rulebook:

SECTION 14. TIMEOUTS GRANTED AND CHARGED

Art. 1. A timeout shall be granted and charged after a visual or oral request by a player or head coach, as set forth in .a through .c or the conditions in .d, .e and .f exist:

…

d. When the appeal for a correctable error or timing, scoring, or, alternating-possession mistake is reviewed and the official’s ruling is not reversed;

e. When the appeal to review the monitor for a flagrant 2 contact foul, flagrant 1 contact foul, or contact dead ball technical foul does not result in a flagrant contact foul or contact dead ball technical foul being charged.

f. A timeout shall be granted for a coach’s challenge, however, if the challenge is successful, the time-out will not be charged.

Here is an example from the case book:

After a one-and-one is shot by Team A and during the first dead ball after the game clock was started after the missed free throw, the coach of Team B requests an appeal stating that Team A was not in the bonus and should not have shot the one-and-one. The official finds that Team A was indeed in the bonus and charges Team B with a timeout.Team B does not have any timeouts left.

RULING: Team B shall be charged with an administrative technical foul for calling an excessive timeout. Any player from Team A shall shoot two free throws with the lane cleared and the ball shall be put back in play at the point of interruption.

(Rules 10-2.7, 4-28.1.e, 7-5.1.a and .b, 5-14.1.d)

And here is a good explanation by NCAA men’s basketball national coordinator of officials, Chris Rastatter7:

Next up: Home vs Abilene Christian on Tuesday, December 16th, 7:00PM MST.