Is Kentucky going too big too often?
As the season slips away, Kentucky has turned more to lineups with 3 bigs. But are these groups actually holding Kentucky back even more?
Hoo boy, it’s been a tough season so far to follow Kentucky. Honestly, it’s been pretty draining for me to sift through the data and find new and interesting things to talk about. Anyone who’s read my work lately or follows me on Twitter knows my steadfast belief that Kentucky needs to play smaller lineups and feature the complementary trio of Dontaie Allen, Keion Brooks, and Isaiah Jackson along the frontline. However, I decided to switch things up and take an indepth look at Kentucky’s bigger lineups to see if I can find some silver linings and determine why Kentucky likes to play these larger groups.
A history of using size
Under John Calipari, Kentucky has tended to be big and play big. KenPom.com has a stat called “Average Height” which averages the height of players by their minutes played. Kentucky has ranked in the top 5 in the country regularly, including ranking 5th this season. Only twice has Kentucky been outside the top 50 (2016 and 2017). A major factor has been Kentucky’s height on the wing, where the Wildcats tend to feature a player 6’7” or taller. 5 different seasons Kentucky has primarily started 3 players 6’7” or taller, a rarity in the college game where 3 guards are more common. Only in 2016, 2017, and 2020 did Kentucky regularly feature 3 guard lineups.
Prior to this season, Kentucky has been in the top 5 in average height in 6 different seasons: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2018. That includes all 4 of UK’s Final Fours under Calipari, and only one of these seasons did the Cats fail to make the Elite 8. Three of these teams (2011, 2012, 2015) are among the four UK teams to rank in the top 10 in offensive efficiency under Calipari.
But this season UK’s offense has languished. In recent games, Kentucky has started using bigger lineups by playing 3 traditional frontcourt players together from the group of Olivier Sarr, Isaiah Jackson, Lance Ware, Jacob Toppin, and Keion Brooks. How has this lineup adjustment been working for the Cats?
Trending bigger recently
We’ll call the group of Sarr/Jackson/Ware/Toppin/Brooks the “bigs”. Kentucky began the season almost exclusiely playing 2 bigs at once, and even occasionally going small wiht just 1 big. These 1 big lineups were a disaster! Kentucky featured them sporadically during the first 6 games of the season and they were outscored by -22 points across 92 possessions. These lineups were a disaster defensively, couldn’t rebound, and Kentucky mothballed them after the UNC game.
UK then started experimenting with playing 3 bigs at once in the Mississippi State game as Jacob Toppin got some time at small forward. Since that game Kentucky has begun to use these lineups more with either Toppin or Keion Brooks playing the small forward role. Each game since the turn of the new year has seen at least some time with 3 bigs, and the most recent Missouri game saw Kentucky split the playing time almost evenly between 2 and 3 bigs (38 and 37 possessions).
What have the results been?
More success with 2 bigs, but not a slam dunk
Since the Mississippi State game, Kentucky has played 2 bigs for 509 possessions and outscored opponents by +15 points, with an adjusted margin of +19 points per 100 possessions. They were great against Florida (+27) and LSU (+21) but had rough outings in both Alabama games (-28 combined) and against Mizzouri (-13).
Over that same time frame, Kentucky has played 3 bigs for 130 possessions and been outscored by -6 points, with an adjusted margin of +13 points per 100 possessions. They outscored Missouri by 8 points, but were outscored most of the rest of the time, although they were +3 in 22 possessions during the first Alabama game.
The underlying stats confirm some fundamental strengths and weaknesses of each approach:
With 3 big men, Kentucky shoots better on 2 pointers but worse on three pointers. The Cats take more shots in the paint with 3 bigs (as you’d hope), with 45% of their shots coming there vs 32% with just 2 bigs. The offense suffers due to high turnover rates, however. The defense is a little better with 3 big men, but suprisingly Kentucky rebounds worse with these bigger lineups.
Overall lineups with 2 bigs have been a little better, but not overwhelmingly so. But the differences get bigger when you look a bit deeper…
It matters which bigs play
Kentucky is getting drastically different results depending on which bigs make up the 2 or 3 who are in. The biggest difference is whether Isaiah Jackson or Keion Brooks is in the game.As you can see, this makes a big difference:
3 big lineups with Jackson in are +6 in 77 possessions, with an adjusted margin of +25 per 100 poss; with him out they are -12 in 53 possessions, with an adjusted margin of -4 per 100
2 big lineups with Jackson in are +40 in 225 possesssions, with an adjusted margin of +34 per 100 poss; with him out they are -25 in 284 possessions with an adjusted margin of +7 per 100
3 big lineups with Brooks in are +2 in 93 possessions, with an adjusted margin of +21 per 100; with him out they are -8 in 37 poss with an adjusted margin of -7 per 100
2 big lineups with Brooks in are +28 in 270 possessions with an adjusted margin of +29 per 100; with him out they are -19 in 369 poss with an adjusted margin of +9 per 100
With both Brooks and Jackson in, 3 big lineups are +13 in 43 poss with an adjusted margin of +50; they have only played 3 possession with both out
With both Brooks and Jackson in, 2 big lineups are +30 in 53 poss with an adjusted margin of +74; with both out they are -21 in 160 poss with an adjusted margin of -1
Lineups with 3 bigs are more likely to be playing either or both of Keion Brooks and Isaiah Jackson and benefitting from this. However, 2 big lineups have both a higher ceiling and a higher floor when you look at how they perform with and without these 2 key frontcourt contributors. When 3 big lineups remove either Brooks or Jackson, they fall off quickly.
Surprising impact on player performance
UK must be seeing some things that they like with 3 bigs, otherwise why would they be playing them more as the season goes on? If we look at how individual frontcourt players performance with 3 bigs vs 2 bigs, there’s one particular player who stands out.
Jackson and Brooks have the biggest negative impact to their play when they are in 3 big lineups:
Jackson goes from averaging 13.9 pts and 11.5 reb per 36 min with 2 bigs to 9.6 and 7.7 with 3 bigs; his effective FG% drops from 58% to 30% as he struggles to find good shots in a crowded paint
Brooks does from averaging 16.5 pts and 10.9 reb per 36 min with 2 bigs to 16.0 and 3.6 reb with 3 bigs; his usefulness on the glass becomes redundant with 3 big lineup
Lance Ware and Jacob Topping are slightly better in 3 big lineups at both scoring and rebounding, although neither has much of an offensive presence.
Olivier Sarr, on the other hand, turns into Luka Garza when he plays in 3 big lineups:
Sarr averages 16.9 points and 9.7 rebounds per 36 minutes in 2 big lineups, with an effective FG% of 44%
When playing in 3 big lineups, Sarr averages 23.1 points and 10.5 rebounds per 36 minutes, and even chips in 4.2 assists per 36; his effective Fg% jumps to 75%
I don’t think most UK fans would guess that they have a big man capable of averaging 23 points and 10.5 rebounds per 36 minutes, but they do! There are 2 catches however. First, Sarr has only played 66 possessions alongside 3 bigs; that’s about 1 game worth, so it’s a limited sample. The second catch has to do with the fact that UK’s offense is a little worst in 3 big lineups. That might seem surprising given the numbers he puts up, but it becomes clearer when you look at UK’s guards and wings. When playing alongside Olivier Sarr and his low-post dominance in 3 big lineups, UK’s guards and wings lose their effectiveness. Askew, Mintz, Boston, and Allen have combined to shoot 1 for 12 from the field, including 0 of 8 from three. They have taken a total of 1 shot inside the paint, as it is clogged up with 3 bigs. Despite Olivier Sarr’s heroics, UK can’t score effectively when he plays alongside 2 other bigs; the Cats score just 76 points per 100 possession in these situations.
Some decent 3 big lineups…but all are better with 2 bigs
Kentucky can put some decent groupings on the floor if they insist on playing these big lineups. The problem is, these lineups perform even better if you swap out the 3rd big for another perimeter player.
For example, the lineup of Mintz/Boston/Brooks/Ware/Jackson did well against Missouri, outscoring the Tigers by 7 points over 9 possessions. But that same lineup with Ware swapped out for a perimeter player (either Askew or Allen) has completely dominated, outscoring SEC opponents by 29 points in just 31 possessions (including a +3 in just 3 possessions vs Missouri).
Similarly, a frontcourt trio of Toppin/Brooks/Jackson has been effective in SEC play in limited time, outscoring opponents by +5 in 11 possessions. But Jackson/Brooks with 3 perimeter players is vastly better, outscoring opponents by +30 in 53 possessions.
If Kentucky insists on playing 3 big lineups, then I would suggest that Kentucky play both Keion Brooks and Isaiah Jackson together. Kentucky has 12 different lineups with 3 bigs who have outscored their opponents; 7 of them have both Brooks and Jackson in them, including all 3 that have played at least 5 possessions together. On the flipside, of the 9 lineups with 3 bigs who have been outscored, only 1 had Brooks and Jackson in it and it played only 4 total possessions.
Kentucky’s lineups with 3 bigs have performed a bit worse than 2 big lineups, but not to a devastating degree. However, the performance with 3 bigs is inflated by the fact that Brooks and/or Jackson tend to be in these lineups more often than they are in with 2 bigs. If you look at it apples to apples, you see that:
Kentucky is better when playing just 2 bigs
Kentucky is better when playing either or both of Brooks or Jackson
Roster management is always a thorny issue, but there is a lot of room for Kentucky to improve by focusing on lineup structures that have been consistently working. At this point it’s too late to save the season, but at least it can end on a more positive note if the rights buttons are pushed.