Winning! team figures to again struggle (in a relative sense) offensively in his minutes. Value The remedies to this are, of course, for %Poss. %Min. Add Henson to: 1. Improve his efficiency, 2. 20.7 54.1 3.9% Decrease his usage, or 3. Some combina21.5 43.3 2.2% tion of the two. A simple way to become 19.7 52.9 1.7% 17.7 47.0 1.6% more efficient involves nothing more 24.1 31.5 1.4% than improving his FT%. If Henson can 14.8 41.6 1.1% just maintain the 59.1% he shot from the 18.4 30.9 0.8% line during February–March, then that 15.8 33.9 0.7% will be a nice step in the right direction. 17.1 36.0 0.4% Another possibility: Henson focuses 18.2 15.8 0.3% 13.3 21.1 0.2% on becoming the best garbage-man scorer 19.8 21.7 0.1% in the nation. He could look to score in 13.5 30.5 -0.2% transition, off of set play lobs, whenever – – – the defense is broken down by dribble 18.0 35.4 1.1% penetration, and by grabbing/converting as many offensive rebounds as humanly possible. Scrap entirely (or at least severely limit) the midrange jumpers, the off-balance post moves/jump hooks, and anything off the dribble that doesn’t result in a dunk/ lay-up (Henson was 2 of 14 on floaters last season; not a huge number, but probably unnecessary for a post player). This would likely result in both lower usage and higher efficiency, a win-win for the Carolina offense. There’s one more option: Henson puts the entire offensive package together and becomes a force on that end. He starts knocking down his free throws, consistently hitting his jump hooks and mid-range jumpers, and using his burgeoning post footwork and crafty ball fakes to get to the rim from the low block. Henson’s potential is massive; it’s not out of the question that he could realize a huge jump in offensive efficiency (while maintaining that high usage rate). And, if that happens, Carolina would become an overwhelmingly heavy favorite to cut down the nets in New Orleans. Short of this type of Henson offensive metamorphosis, however, the best-case scenario might be the 2009 low-post model. Instead of the co-alpha dogs Carolina featured last year (Zeller with a %Poss of 23.0, Henson with a 23.7%), Zeller can assume the Hansbrough role (%Poss of 26.7, O Rating of 124.0 in 2009) with Henson sliding into the Deon Thompson
Table 9: Post Efficiency in the Roy Williams Era Frontcourt Starters (%Min. of >60%) Player
Year
O Rating %Poss.
Frontcourt “Reserves” (%Min. of <60%)
%Min.
Value Player Add
Year
O Rating
Hansbrough 2008
125.2
26.8
81.4
8.7%
M. Williams 2005
119.4
Hansbrough 2009
124.0
26.7
67.5
6.6%
Davis
2010
111.7
May
2005
118.6
28.0
67.0
6.4%
Thompson
2008
104.0
Hansbrough 2006
118.7
26.6
76.0
6.3%
Davis
2009
108.3
Hansbrough 2007
119.8
26.2
74.2
6.2%
Zeller
2010
106.8
Zeller
2011
120.1
23.0
70.1
5.1%
Noel
2004
103.7
J. Williams
2005
122.9
20.5
60.0
4.8%
Thompson
2007
104.3
Wright
2007
118.9
21.1
66.2
4.3%
Stepheson
2008
101.7
J. Williams
2004
112.1
21.4
63.7
3.8%
Knox
2011
96.7
Noel
2006
109.3
19.5
84.3
3.4%
Stepheson
2007
99.5
May
2004
103.7
26.2
68.5
3.3%
Watts
2011
96.9
Thompson
2010
105.7
24.4
66.8
2.8%
T. Wear
2010
93.2
Sanders
2006
87.0
Thompson
2009
106.4
19.5
61.8
2.1%
Henson
2011
97.6
23.7
66.6
1.1%
–
–
–
Average
–
114.5
23.8
69.6
4.6%
Average
–
102.6
the +/- data, as presented in Table 10. With both Henson and Zeller on the floor, UNC’s adjusted offensive efficiency was a solid 116.3. With just Zeller on the floor, it exploded to a sensational 126.1. With just Henson, however, the adjusted efficiency plummeted to 98.6. As an aside (and not surprisingly), Carolina’s adjusted defensive efficiency was clearly the best with both starting big men on the floor. It was slightly better with only Henson than it was with only Zeller. The bottom of Table 10 shows the offensive splits for Henson and Zeller when paired together versus when on the floor separately. When sharing the court, each used about 23% of the team’s possessions—Zeller much more efficiently than Henson. When not paired with each other, the UNC big men became more involved offensively—Zeller used about 24% of Carolina’s possessions and Henson 26%. Zeller’s scoring efficiency skyrocketed—a TS% of 65.1—in the non-Henson minutes (when he was the true primary post option instead of a co-primary one). Henson’s stayed about the same, quite inefficient for a top option in the paint, and that inefficiency seemed to be reflected in the team’s numbers. Looking ahead to the 2011–12 season, what can the fan base expect from Henson on the offensive end? If he continues to combine low efficiency with high usage, the
Table 10: Carolina’s Big Men—How Zeller and Henson Play With and Without Each Other Frontcourt
Min.
Pace
Net Eff. Adj. Net
Off. Eff.
Adj. OE
eFG%
Henson-Zeller
726
71.5
14.3
28.6
107.2
116.3
49.4
Only Zeller
320
74.1
18.8
32.8
116.4
126.1
Only Henson
269
72.0
-6.4
6.7
90.8
Neither
170
73.6
12.7
10.4
108.2
FTA Rate
OR%
TO%
Def. Eff.
Adj. DE
eFG%
36.1
40.2
18.8
92.9
87.7
45.0
53.9
49.5
37.1
17.8
97.6
93.3
49.3
98.6
42.6
33.9
33.9
19.5
97.2
91.9
107.2
49.6
31.0
30.6
15.1
95.5
96.8
Offense
Minutes FGA/40
FTA Rate
DR%
TOF%
20.6
68.6
20.2
32.7
72.4
20.1
45.5
24.2
68.6
19.1
47.0
29.5
72.8
17.8
Defense
Pts/40
TO/40
TS%
%Shots
%Poss
Zeller w/Henson
726
14.7
21.4
1.7
57.8
23.4
22.6
Zeller w/o Henson
320
14.6
24.1
2.5
65.1
24.2
23.8
Henson w/ Zeller
726
14.1
16.9
3.0
50.0
22.5
22.8
Henson w/o Zeller
269
16.1
18.8
3.1
50.6
25.8
26.0
| 11