5 Burning Questions for the Rest of Davidson's Season

Just over halfway through the conference season, our Cats are sitting at 5-5. While such a mark might not have seemed strange based off our preseason expectations, the way that these Cats have gotten here has been fascinating to watch play out.

There was a stretch in the early noncon slate, as has often been the case in recent history, where Davidson looked like it had taken a leap. It all appeared to come crashing down in late December, once again as per the recent norm. The A10 schedule has been full of shocking reversals and bouncebacks, though.

Davidson's first 3 halves (and 2 overtimes) of A10 spelled disaster -- only for the Cats to roar back and pick up a road win over St. Joe's that has aged very nicely. It then appeared that the first rock bottom, including the first ever home loss to Duquesne and a 20 point half against the Hawk, was actually a false summit of sorts.

The loss to Rhode Island that followed the 2-1 start appeared truly devastating. Just as mountaineers see false summits nearing the top of a peak, Matt McKillop's teams have experienced false rock bottoms (see: last year's team boucning back on the road against UMass before truly collapsing late). The short reversal against St. Joe's and Loyola made the three game losing streak look like one of those false rock bottoms. Surely after getting thumped by Rhode Island at home, the season was over. And yet...

We sit here in early February (mostly) pleased with the team's progress. There have been growing pains, but also moments that at least partially satiated my need for real Davidson Hoops again. The first half against Saint Louis is just one of the latest in a string that includes some real highs: our biggest win in the Robins Center ever; Matt's first win over Chris Caputo and a talented (albeit deeply flawed) GW; and, a 17-4 run that had me thinking we could get over the hump against a good Mason team.

I now return to the original question: have we experienced a false rock bottom, or is it mostly up from here? Here are five questions that I believe will most determine how we view this season -- and also a lot of what we're going to expect from the offseason into next year.

1. Is Davidson better or worse defensively than the numbers Suggest?

For all the questions around the program the last three years, the one thing that's consistently excited us is Matt's desire to modernize Davidson's defensive scheme. There was serious backsliding last year, but this year's side has recaptured some of the 23/24 team's defensive strengths with a lot more offensive upside. Davidson forces more turnovers (17.8%, 130th nationally), actually guards the three point line (32.6% against, 107th nationally), and has versatility that was heretofore unseen, especially as of late. The gimmick didn't work the entire game, but the Cats were able to throw Saint Louis off for a while by switching between man, a 1-3-1 zone, and token press. Seemingly gone are the days of hedging the pick and roll against every opponent, regardless of personnel.

The shot location data and assist rate data spell out this modernization. In average 2-point distribution, KenPom's newest stat, the Cats rank a respectable 116th on the defensive end at 6.2 feet. This is essentially the average length of shot taken inside the arc, and higher is much, much better, as it indicates opponents are taking less efficient, longer twos and struggling a bit to get to the rim. Then there's the assist rate numbers: Davidson's opponents assist on only 45.4% of their made FGs. If you read the women's article on this site last spring, you know that unassisted shots are harder than assisted ones, and you should try to minimize opportunities for the latter. Length and switchability in the backcourt go a long way.

With that in mind, why isn't Davidson's defense even better? Well...

The one downside to enticing opponents to take more midrange shots (good) means that said shots are going to be less defended (bad). However, the rate at which opponents are hitting midrange shots against Davidson is a quite high 46.2%. If that 46.2% were a team, it would rank top 30 in the nation in midrange efficiency. And while we've seen a bit of positive regression in conference play to a more reasonable 42.5%, that's still dragging our defensive metrics down a fair bit. So while Davidson's 2 point percentage against (53.6%) looks bad, it might not be quite that bad.

There is, however, an argument for the defense being worse than the sticker says, and that revolves around the three point defense performing better than expected (32% is a bit better than Hoop Explorer's "luck adjusted" 34%) and the Cats' rebounding being very bad. This one especially perplexes me, as it's easier to rebound off longer twos and Davidson's opponents take fewer threes than the national average. It's also worth noting Davidson has been very fortunate to see its opponents shoot 67.2% from the free throw line. Maybe they're just being charitable after seeing us try a few.

The scheme seems to be working, so I want to see more positive regression and effort on the glass. Time will tell if a top 100 defense that makes.

2. How real is Josh Scovens's ascension?

Like many others, I have fallen victim to Blumsapalooza and can't stop talking about the Pride of Riga. But Davidson has other great shooters. The Cats have only one Josh Scovens, though, and I think there's a case for him to be MVP and an all-league player.

Over the last 6 games, when the Cats have seemingly taken a leap into a top 100 caliber team, Scov is averaging 14.7/ 6.2 / 1.8 on a hot 66.9 eFG%. In the A10 slate, he's 12th in the league in offensive rebound rate, and 14th in offensive rating. On T-Rank, he's tied with Blums for best on the team in points above replacement.

While his scoring recently has been especially smooth, the reason I'm inclined to say his growth is real is his playmaking ability. Davidson has absolutely shot the HELL out of the ball off offensive rebounds this year, and he is a very, very good offensive rebounder. Off Scov's offensive boards, Davidson is averaging a staggering 1.24 points per possession. Then there's the playmaking piece. Inefficient post ups clearly held back Matt's offense last year, and we may have discussed it a few times on the podcast. Scovens has made them efficient (at least his post ups... more on the others in a bit). Playing inside-out with Scovens, Davidson is averaging 1.07 PPP. His drive and kicks are one of our best actions in the half court. Even if he cools off from being a 98th percentile midrange scorer (1.10 PPP), I'm inclined to say he's the most important piece for the final A10 push.

Culturally, though, I think Scov is also the key. He's not just our best creator, he's probably the most vocal leader on both ends. More symbolically, though, he represents type of hard-nosed program Matt wants to build. I wrote in the offseason that the reason to be excited with Scovens was his elevation against top competition last year. We saw it in his excellent first half against SLU (11 points, 5 boards, and 3 assists on just 5 shots while guarding Avila), and that proved to me that he might make an even bigger leap next year. We'll see if it sustains down the stretch.

3. Are Davidson's offensive droughts a feature or a bug?

It's beyond the scope of this article to diagnose all of Davidson's problems on offense, but we all know that the droughts are costing the Cats games. I was there when we went over 7 minutes without scoring in what was a one possession game against George Mason. It happened against VCU right before the half, and it happened again against Saint Louis in two devastating runs (one 8-0 before the half, one 16-0 after it).

Regardless of how well or poorly Matt's offenses have played, these lapses have been a constant. So though I don't have time to come up with a solution, I can tell you some of the reasons I'm hesistant to believe this trend reverses.

I'll refrain from naming names (because the blame really shouldn't fall on them), but there are several players who are taking shots they really should not be taking. One player is generating only 0.71 PPP on off dribble jumpers, but taking them at a 75th percentile rate. Another is at 0.79 PPP on post ups despite taking 12.1 per 100 possessions while on the floor (99th percentile in frequency). As a whole, the Cats use post ups slightly more than the average DI team despite being just 21st percentile in post up efficiency.

You can find several of these instances, and who's doing what doesn't really matter. What matters is that you can point to this same thing happening in several places without a change. You have to trust your guys, but there's a fine line between trusting your guys and letting them chuck. If these bad tendencies don't get reeled back, Davidson's ceiling down the stretch is going to be much lower than it should. Davidson has the depth and flexibility to be as multiple on offense as it is on defense; however, it still feels as though there's some square peg/round hole situations. So many sets that the Cats run haven't really changed, and I think that's why A10 teams who've played us a dozen times or more perform better than teams in the nonconference.

Matt's scheme is less reliant on motion and more reliant on gunslinger guards and the inside-out game -- obviously. Does that predispose Davidson to droughts and cold spells? I'm not necessarily convinced it has to, provided that freelance play leads to efficient shots and not the same inefficient ones we can tell aren't working. You can play fast and play smart. Realistically, flexibility should help alleviate cold spells, since it lets other guys step into larger roles if someone's having an off night.

That leads to the next schematic question: if Davidson really is going to play this deep, with this many creators and gunslingers, why aren't we playing a style more conducive to that sort of roster constuction?

I realize I can't have it both ways. But I think you can simultaneously point out that Davidson is both a) letting its creators have bad habits b) not optimizing its playstyle for the amount of creators on its roster. They're both symptoms of the same scheme issues. Maybe part of the answer is playing faster: the transition numbers for the Cats are really rough right now, but it's also not what the team has been schemed to do. Maybe you mix in three guards more, or you try more ultra small lineups with the Scovens/JQ or Scovens/Manie backline (that trio worked great for stretches against St. Mary's size and plodding pace).

I'd also like to see Davidson sacrifice some transition defense for offensive rebounds, because the Cats have been absolutely lights out shooting threes of off them. The Cats have averaged a red hot 1.26 PPP off offensive rebounds, but get these looks at an average rate. Scovens and Ian excel at these passes, and the Cats obviously have shooters, so they really need to get some more of these looks.

There was some creativity in trying to play faster against SLU, and that's ultimately the kind of answer you have to have to raise the team's ceiling and maximize the roster.

4. Is Davidson actually in the double bye race?

Just as the mushy middle started to collapse in December, the Cats also started to collapse. While we may have been focused on Davidson's apparent implosion, we lost sight of the bigger picture: we're still better than a lot of the A10.

Richmond and St. Bonaventure, formerly in the upper mushy middle, have both suffered far worse collapses than Davidson's. Based off the Cats' win in the Robins Center, the former looks unlikely to bounce back. La Salle and Fordham have shown promise, but are still going to be clawing to escape the pillow fight. GW and Dayton have been in serious slumps; the latter will surely improve, the former might not.

Duquesne and St. Joe's are realistically the teams most comparable to Davidson right now, and all three form a Circle of Mid with wins over the other. The Hawk has the edge in the double bye race in record, but the Cats have the easiest schedule and play Joe's again at home. In fact, including tonight's game against Loyola, Davidson has 3 home games remaining against teams it already beat on the road. There's also a home game against La Salle. Those games alone can get you to 9.

This is where things get interesting. If you're on A10 Twitter, you've surely seen the charts that have Davidson's modal outcome as fourth. The reasoning is simple: the fourth double bye team is likely to be 11-7 or 10-8, and Davidson has a very real path to those records.

The most important game will be next Sunday against Dayton. The Flyers' only win of the past 5 was against a 2-7 Bona at home, and they will likely pick up another loss against VCU on the road in FridA10. There's some quit potential. Ideally, Davidson can pick up the next two easy ones at home (please...) and get some Big Mo heading into UD Arena. I'm weirdly more comfortable playing on the road. And even though the Cats have never won there, Duquesne had never won in Belk until barely a month ago.

Speaking of Duquesne, the Dukes' shocking win over Mason last night did hurt Davidson's chances a bit, as the Cats went from a 28% chance to 20% chance of finishing fourth. However, it remains the most likely outcome in the simulation, and the Cats get Duquesne again in a building they've historically played very well. Keep improving and you can steal that one, which could also be win number 10 with a Dayton loss. From there, it's still probably not enough without one more, although that one more just has to be one of Fordham or Bona on the road in the final 2 weeks. Davidson is more talented than both and has played very well against both on the road before.

An upper table finish won't just inspire the roster to stick around and see what they can build, it could give Davidson a path to playing on the weekend in the A10 tournament, which would be a program building moment in and of itself. The only thing I really, really don't want to see is an 8th or 9th place finish and 11:30 tipoff against Saint Louis as the reward for winning a game. Don't fall that far.

5. Does real success have a number?

This is my ultimate point. Personally, I don't care so much whether the Cats are 7th or 4th as long as the progress we see for the next month is an extension of the last 6 games' growth. The team has to believe that their growth and the coaches' growth can extend into next year. Davidson set things up for a 2 year window with its juniors, and getting everyone to stay allows you to swing for the fences in their senior year.

Despite all the reversals and false rock bottoms in recent memory, every season has felt different but the same. We get excited for a little bit, things look bad, maybe get better, then turn out worse than we thought in the first place. We handicap the Cats' win totals every year (it's part of the podcaster gig), and it feels as though Davidson has finished 3 or more wins below our best guesses. This year has clearly bucked the trend so far.

Think of all the 50/50s Davidson has lost in recent memory. They've won at least one of those this year with the win in Hawk Hill, so I have hope. I also will note that this season has had the longest periods of sustained hope out of the past three, including this current stretch. For that reason, I'll say that no, true "success" for this team has no number. Maybe don't drop to below .500 or get in the nasty 9 vs. 8 game to play Saint Louis. But there's a 10-8 where Davidson wins a few gritty games and blows out the teams it should, and a 10-8 where Davidson limps to a winning record despite getting worse because everyone else is inept. For the continuity of the roster, and the growth of Matt as a coach, I'd really like to see the former.