How WKU Basketball is Able to Compete With Eight Players
Anyone who has watched the Battle 4 Atlantis this Thanksgiving weekend is marveling at the quality of the teams and the quality of the games. Of the eight teams in the tournament (Arizona, North Carolina State, Northern Iowa, Purdue, SMU, Tennessee, Villanova and Western Kentucky), WKU would seem like the prohibitive underdog. However, the Toppers finished the tournament 2–1, with wins over #18 Purdue and a KenPom Top 25 squad in SMU, finishing in fifth place.
WKU led most of the first half against Villanova before eventually wearing out late in the second half, losing by eight to a national title contender. The Hilltoppers then battled a huge Purdue team and thoroughly controlled the tone of the game, leading the entire way after erasing Purdue’s lone lead at 3–2 in the opening two minutes. The Tops then, despite trailing for 38+ minutes, were able to hang with SMU and be close enough to pull out the tough victory at the end.
So, this begs the question,
How Are They Doing It?
Legitimate Talent and Experience
On their active roster, WKU has six players rated as three stars or better coming out of high school. Two (Dwight Coleby and Darius Thompson) went on to play at Power 5 conference schools that made deep runs in the NCAA Tournament. They graduated and transferred to WKU for their final year of eligibility. Junior Lamonte Bearden starred on NCAA Tournament teams with Buffalo. Senior Justin Johnson has scored 1180 points in his career as a Hilltopper. Taveion Hollingsworth was 2017’s Kentucky Mr. Basketball. Jake Ohmer is proving to be a legitimate sharpshooter with a quick release.
Maximizing Opportunities and Minimizing Weaknesses
WKU jumped on Villanova and Purdue early. WKU did not surrender the lead against Purdue, despite significant game pressure in the second half. Villanova truly had to battle to get the lead against the Hilltoppers just before halftime and the Tops were within striking distance until ten minutes left in the game.
In addition to great starts, WKU has been efficient in areas they shouldn’t have been against teams with superior size and depth. Against arguably the best pressure defense in the country, WKU turned it over only one more time than Villanova. In addition, the Toppers only fouled a total of 11 times against the Wildcats, staying out of foul trouble and allowing an effective rotation of eight bodies.
Against Purdue, Justin Johnson went toe-to-toe with Purdue’s 7'3" and 7'2" centers, Matt Haarms and Isaac Haas, and the Toppers out-rebounded the massive Boilermakers. Against one of the perennial best defenses in the NCAA, WKU amassed 77 points and had a positive assist to turnover ratio.
Young Players Contributing Significant Minutes
Fathom this stat line: Freshmen Jake Ohmer and Taiveion Hollingsworth have combined for 16–26 shooting, 8–10 from three, and 8–9 free throws through two games in the Battle 4 Atlantis. Wow.
1–3–1 Zone Defense
WKU head coach Rick Stansbury generally runs a man-to-man defense. However, with seven or eight players available, man-to-man is a tough ask. Man defense requires massive effort by each defender, because each player has to follow his guy around all over the court. Asking a roster of seven to sprint around for 40 minutes is questionable logic. Also, if the players on the roster are significant liabilities defensively, man-to-man defense will further expose mismatches.
Zone defense is generally a conservative approach that allows teams to disguise individual weakness and conserve energy. Stansbury mentioned in some post game interviews last week that he’s been trying to disguise some Tops that aren’t as good defensively, and zone is a perfect opportunity to minimize liability for a poor defender. From observation and placement in the zone, it seems three of the defensively deficient Toppers are Justin Johnson, Jake Ohmer and Marek Nelson. Hence, Johnson and Nelson are generally at the point of the press with their size and length. Ohmer is usually off to the wing, where he’s effective in creating havoc, but there is a reason he is placed in a less significant spot in the defense.
The 1–3–1 zone is a risk-taking defense. How? When you look at the diagram, where are the holes? The baseline and the wings are exposed. The middle of the paint is highly protected, with a man that swings back and forth, depending on where the offense shifts or where the ball goes. When the ball goes into one of the weak areas, the defenders naturally converge from two sides and trap the offensive player. Generally, a smart offense will run a man on the baseline, and when the defense converges on the baseline, a player makes himself available on the other side of the lane, and another takes advantage of the vacated spots in the middle of the lane. If an offense can find an open spot in the middle of the lane, there are going to be at least two passing lanes towards the corners of the halfcourt.
Note: Middle Tennessee’s base defense is a 1–3–1. They recruit explosive, athletic players with long arms because that’s what they need to run their defense. Middle gave Michigan State and some other big names a tough time, because the 1–3–1 is not commonly played on the college level, and they were unfamiliar with the intricacies of a 1–3–1. However, because this defense is flawed, MTSU has lost unexpectedly to teams that figure out how to attack their zone. Of late, MTSU has had superior athletes that make the 1–3–1 stifling and intimidating.
Because of the design of the defense, the offensive player generally has to throw over the top of or around at least one of the defenders, and generally, the 1–3–1 forces opponents to think about where they’re trying to go with the basketball. This zone can be beaten with good decisions and exploiting mistakes by the defense. It’s a flawed defense and should not be a long-term solution. So far this year, WKU goes in and out of this zone, as well as throwing in some man, as well as a 2–3 zone. WKU played much more 2–3 against Villanova, because they wanted to keep them out of the lane. Purdue was much more of a brute-force type of opponent, so WKU played a lot more man-to-man to compete on the glass and threw in the 1–3–1 to speed them up.
With WKU’s lack of depth, they must gamble on some level, without putting players at significant risk of committing fouls. In addition to their Petri Dish depth, WKU is undersized on the inside, but possesses significant length and quickness at other positions. WKU plays several 6'7" players with long arms, so putting them at the point of the press has wreaked havoc thus far in 2017–18.
WKU’s 1–3–1 has allowed them to force nearly 20 turnovers per game on the season, and because of deflections and fast breaks, WKU has generally dominated the free throw battle, despite being outsized every time they take the court.
So how is WKU able to compete, despite being outmatched on multiple levels? They have found a way to create chaos with the 1–3–1 defense, and they’re allowing their athleticism and quickness to create easy baskets and open looks. They have minimized their burden defensively by playing zone. They have three freshmen capable of playing significant leadership roles, and they have three experienced players with significant NCAA Tournament experience in addition to their two returners from 2016–17.
