the 2010–2011 TAR HEELS
John Henson #31
6' 10" • 210 • Tampa, FL • Sophomore 2009–10 Minutes: PF: 59.9% SF: 37.0% C: 3.1%
OFFENSIVE HOT SPOTS AND GO-TO SHOTS Of Henson’s 88 made field goals, 43 were dunks and 23 were layups. Along with Brandan Wright (2.96 dunks per 40 minutes), Henson (2.93/40) finished with a flush far more often than any Heel in the Roy Williams era (no one else even approached 2.0 dunks/40 minutes). Unlike Wright, who had a much more polished post game (dunks only accounted for 33% of his made field goals), Henson’s offensive repertoire didn’t extend much beyond rattling the rim. He made just 8-of-28 hook shots (28.6%), most of which were attempted with his left hand, and many resulting in ghastly-looking air balls. With his length and ability to use either hand, the jump hook has the potential to be a great weapon for Henson. Like Zeller, he needs to focus on patience in the post and shot selection in the upcoming campaign. Rather than settling for longer lefty hooks, Henson would be better served to face up his defender and attack off the dribble where his length, combined with some crafty ball fakes, enables him to create and convert close opportunities in traffic— some of them of the circus variety. From 10–20 feet, Henson made just 27% of his 37 shots. He showed flashes of a smooth midrange game off the bounce but, as his free throw touch demonstrated, he’s not going to be a consistent perimeter threat. Truly ambidextrous (although lacking great touch with either hand), Henson attempted nearly a third (57-181) of his shots with his left hand, making 47.4% of them. Henson still might be a year away from contributing much more on offense than dunks, layups, transition hoops, and garbage buckets. Since he’s so adept in these areas, though, that should still be enough to account for 10–12 points per game.
STATISTICAL TRENDS AND BOX SCORE OBSERVATIONS Henson’s season obviously took off after his move to the 4. In February and March, he averaged 9.3 points, 7.2 rebounds, and 2.2 blocks per game over nearly 23 minutes of action. Those numbers all figure to increase a little as a sophomore, but should provide a solid baseline for the level of play that Henson is capable of as a starting 4. After a disastrous plus-minus start to the season with Henson as a 3 (UNC really struggled on both ends during these minutes), the team played significantly better with him at the 4. In fact, during ACC games, Carolina was 2.5 points per 100 possessions better overall and 4.2 points per 100 possessions better defensively with Henson on the court than it was with him on the bench. For the year, his On-Court/Off-Court numbers were still the worst on the team, but that doesn’t accurately reflect the impact that he had on the scoreboard after the position switch.
Henson blocked 9.3% of opponents’ two-point shots last season—the fourth-best rate in Carolina history (trailing Warren Martin’s 12.7% in 1986, Brendan Haywood’s 12.1% in 2001, and Kevin Salvadori’s 11.2% in 1992, and just ahead of teammate Ed Davis’s 9.0% last season). Although he has a bad habit of swatting shots out of bounds rather than keeping them alive, he’s unquestionably a game-changing help-side defender. On the ball, however, he’s still a defensive work in progress. While strength will always be an issue, the potential to dominate defensively is obvious.
34 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2010–2011
© 2010 Maple Street Press, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Photo: Elsa/Getty Images
DEFENSIVE BOX SCORE OBSERVATIONS
the 2010–2011 TAR HEELS
John Henson #31 2009–10 GAME-BY-GAME STATISTICS DATE 11/9 11/11 11/15 11/19 11/20 11/23 11/29 12/1 12/5 12/12 12/19 12/22 12/28 12/30 1/4 1/10 1/13 1/16 1/20 1/26 1/31 2/4 2/7 2/10 2/13 2/16 2/20 2/24 2/27 3/2 3/6 3/11 3/16 3/20 3/23 3/30 4/1 Totals Averages
OPP Fla Int'l NC Central Valparaiso Ohio St (N) Syracuse (N) Gardner Webb Nevada Mich St @Kentucky Presbyterian @Texas Marshall Rutgers Albany @Col Charl Va Tech @Clemson Ga Tech W Forest @NC State Virginia @Va Tech @Maryland Duke NC State @Ga Tech @BC Florida St @W Forest Miami @Duke Ga Tech (N) W & Mary @Miss St @UAB URI (N) Dayton (N) 37 GP
RESULT W 88-72 W 89-42 W 88-77 W 77-73 L 87-71 W 93-72 W 80-73 W 89-82 L 68-66 W 103-64 L 103-90 W 98-61 W 81-67 W 87-70 L 82-79 W 78-64 L 83-64 L 73-71 L 82-69 W 77-63 L 75-60 L 74-70 L 92-71 L 64-54 W 74-61 L 68-51 L 71-67 L 77-67 W 77-68 W 69-62 L 82-50 L 62-58 W 80-72 W 76-74 W 60-55 W 68-67 L 79-68
MIN 12 13 9 8 7 13 9 14 9 17 12 9 10 19 14 10 7 9 8 7 5 14 16 20 26 30 27 25 21 23 23 18 23 28 23 27 21 586 15.8
Field Goals FG FGA 2 3 1 4 2 4 1 3 0 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 0 3 4 6 0 2 1 1 0 1 4 6 1 3 1 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 3 5 6 2 6 2 8 4 9 5 10 5 10 4 7 4 6 3 4 5 10 3 7 3 6 6 11 7 11 3 10 2 4 88 181 2.4 4.9
Free Throws FTM FTA 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 4 4 0 0 2 3 1 5 1 7 1 4 4 6 1 3 1 2 4 7 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 5 32 73 0.9 2.0
3-Point FG 3PM 3PA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 18 0.1 0.5
PTS 4 4 4 2 1 3 7 2 1 11 0 5 0 8 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 14 4 6 9 11 11 12 9 7 14 6 9 12 14 6 5 212 5.7
OFF 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 4 3 3 4 2 5 1 3 3 6 0 1 5 1 60 1.6
Rebounds DEF 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 0 7 0 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 5 7 3 3 7 11 5 3 4 8 2 7 0 103 2.8
TOT 1 3 6 2 2 3 1 3 2 9 1 3 1 3 3 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 5 7 8 10 7 5 12 12 8 6 10 8 3 12 1 163 4.4
AST 2 4 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 34 0.9
TO 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 3 1 3 2 0 2 1 1 3 2 45 1.2
STL 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 1 26 0.7
BLK 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 5 3 4 1 1 5 4 0 2 2 3 1 2 1 60 1.6
PF 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 4 1 2 2 1 3 39 1.1
CAREER STATISTICS Career STATS BY YEAR Year FR
MPG PPG RPG APG SPG BPG TOPG A:TO FG% FT% 3Pt% PER
WORP / 35
15.8
5.7
4.4
0.9
0.7
1.6
1.2
0.76 48.6 43.8 22.2 18.4
1.05
Projected SO 28.0 10.5
8.3
1.6
1.3
2.8
2.3
0.68 51.0 54.6
2.39
0.0 20.7
Most statistically similar ACC season (all classes)
Derrick Lewis (1987-88, SR)
Most statistically similar ACC season (Freshmen)
Jerai Grant (2007-08) DEFENSIVE BOX SCoRE STATS BY YeaR Class
FG% All.
3Pt% All.
TS% All.
TOF / 40
Defl. / 40
Off. Fouls / 40
DR%
Stop%
Def. On-C/ Off-C
FR
40.1
46.9
47.2
2.83
4.23
0.27
17.6
56.2
-4.4
Most statistically similar UNC season (all classes)
Danny Green (2005-06, FR)
© 2010 Maple Street Press, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2010–2011 | 35
the 2010–2011 TAR HEELS
John Henson #31 2009–10 BOX SCORE STATISTICS All Games / 40 Min.1 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar./Apr. ACC Non-Conf Regular Post vs. Top 25 vs. 26-50 vs. 51-100 vs. 100+ Home Road Neutral Wins Losses
G 37 – 7 7 7 8 8 17 20 31 6 10 8 10 9 19 13 5 20 17
MPG 15.8 40.0 10.2 12.9 8.6 22.4 23.3 17.0 14.9 14.4 23.3 14.1 19.1 16.2 14.4 14.4 17.8 16.2 16.1 15.6
PPG 5.7 13.6 3.6 3.9 1.6 9.5 9.1 6.6 5.0 5.2 8.7 4.2 7.4 6.6 5.0 5.2 7.2 4.0 6.0 5.4
RPG 4.4 10.5 2.6 3.1 1.1 6.9 7.5 5.1 3.9 4.0 6.7 3.5 4.9 5.0 4.3 4.1 4.8 4.6 5.2 3.5
APG 0.9 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.5 1.6 0.6 1.2 0.8 1.7 0.5 1.3 0.7 1.3 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.2 0.6
SPG 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.9 0.5
BPG 1.6 3.9 0.9 2.0 0.7 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.0 2.1 1.1
TOPG PFPG A:TO 1.2 1.1 0.76 2.9 2.5 0.76 0.3 0.3 4.50 1.3 0.7 0.67 1.3 0.7 0.22 1.4 1.8 0.36 1.8 1.6 0.93 1.4 1.3 0.42 1.1 0.9 1.14 1.2 0.8 0.67 1.5 2.2 1.11 0.8 0.8 0.63 1.5 1.9 0.83 1.5 1.0 0.47 1.1 0.7 1.20 1.3 0.8 0.72 1.2 1.2 0.67 1.0 1.6 1.20 1.2 0.7 0.96 1.2 1.5 0.52
FG% 48.6 48.6 45.5 47.6 38.5 50.0 50.8 49.5 47.7 48.5 49.0 34.9 55.3 51.8 51.4 50.7 51.3 34.6 53.1 43.4
FT% 43.8 43.8 40.0 66.7 25.0 43.8 42.9 44.4 42.9 45.9 33.3 60.0 38.9 28.6 50.0 52.9 40.0 22.2 38.7 47.6
3Pt% 22.2 22.2 25.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 30.8 22.2 – 0.0 0.0 50.0 28.6 26.7 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0
eFG% 49.7 49.7 47.7 54.8 38.5 50.0 50.8 49.5 50.0 50.0 49.0 34.9 55.3 53.6 54.3 53.3 51.3 34.6 55.1 43.4
FTA Rate 40.3 40.3 45.5 28.6 30.8 51.6 33.3 48.4 31.8 46.2 24.5 46.5 38.3 37.5 40.0 45.3 37.5 34.6 31.6 50.6
TS% 49.2 49.2 46.7 56.6 36.9 49.2 50.0 49.0 49.4 49.7 47.5 40.0 53.1 50.0 54.0 53.8 49.9 33.0 53.2 44.7
Usage Rate1 17.8 17.8 17.6 15.0 15.6 19.0 18.9 18.7 17.0 17.6 18.5 16.8 17.9 19.6 16.7 17.2 18.6 17.8 17.4 18.4
OR% 10.4 10.4 5.9 7.0 8.7 14.6 11.2 12.6 8.8 10.3 11.9 13.3 6.1 12.9 10.4 9.5 11.3 12.9 9.1 12.6
DR% 17.6 17.6 19.9 17.9 5.0 16.9 21.7 17.7 17.5 17.8 17.3 12.2 19.8 18.7 20.2 19.5 16.1 16.2 23.5 10.6
PER 18.4 18.4 22.7 18.1 7.0 19.8 19.3 17.7 19.1 18.4 18.4 14.4 18.1 19.6 21.6 20.1 18.1 13.5 22.3 13.7
WORP / 352 1.05 2.66 1.02 0.82 -0.21 1.73 1.71 1.03 1.07 0.99 1.55 0.49 1.22 1.23 1.33 1.16 1.13 0.45 1.56 0.45
1. Per-game stats in the ‘/ 40 minutes’ row are pace-adjusted to reflect an average-paced ACC game for 2009-10 (68.3 possessions / 40 minutes). Per-game stats in all other rows are pace-dependent (based on UNC’s 2009-10 pace of 72.6 possessions / 40). 2. WORP / 35 (wins over replacement player per 35 games) measures the number of marginal wins that a player contributes as compared to a “replacement level” ACC player at his position.
BE YOND THE BOX SCORE STATISTICS DEFENSIVE BOX SCORE STATISTICS
All: ACC:
Min.
FG-A
Total
586
95.5-238
Per 40
40.0
6.5-16.2
Total
290
48-119.5
Per 40
40.0
6.6-16.5
3Pt-A
FT-A
FG %
eFG %
TS % Pts. All.
TOF
23-49
32-47
40.1
1.6-3.3
2.2-3.2
40.1
45.0
47.2
246
41.5
45.0
47.2
16.8
2.8
8-16
22-31
40.2
43.5
46.9
126
17.5
1.1-2.2
3.0-4.3
40.2
43.5
46.9
17.4
2.4
Off. Fouls
Def. Rat.
Def. On-Court Rat.+1 Def. Eff.
56.2
99.0
100.0
56.2
99.0
100.0
101.7
9.9
53.4
103.7
99.7
101.0
9.9
53.4
103.7
99.7
101.0
Defl.
DR %
St. %
Bl. % Stop %
4
62
17.6
2.5
9.3
0.3
4.2
17.6
2.5
9.3
3
32
17.7
1.8
0.4
4.4
17.7
1.8
101.7
1. Defensive Rating+ is an index of a player’s Defensive Rating compared to UNC’s average team defensive efficiency where 102 is 2% better than average and 98 is 2% worse than average.
SHOT CREATION Assisted by:
Unasst.
Drew II
Ginyard
Thompson
Strickland
McDonald
Graves
Davis
Zeller
Others
49
17
5
5
4
3
1
1
0
3
88
55.7
19.3
5.7
5.7
4.6
3.4
1.1
1.1
0.9
3.4
100.0
# of FGs % of Total FGs
Total
+/– STATISTICS Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
On-Court
586.4
71.5
-2.4
Off-Court
903.6
72.6
+7.1
All Minutes:
Difference1
Offensive 4 Factors eFG %
FTA Rate
OR %
TO %
99.3
46.9
30.2
38.4
21.2
104.4
48.7
41.8
38.2
20.7
Def. Eff.
Defensive 4 Factors eFG %
FTA Rate
DR %
101.7
48.1
23.3
66.3
TOF % 18.9
97.3
46.6
25.3
68.3
18.8
–
-1.1
-9.5
-5.1
-1.8
-11.6
+0.2
-0.5
-4.4
-1.5
+2.0
-2.0
+0.1
As 4 (PF)
351.1
67.5
-3.4
99.9
45.3
29.0
38.9
19.0
103.3
47.5
27.1
67.7
17.1
As 3 (SF)
216.8
77.2
-5.6
95.8
48.4
28.8
37.2
25.0
101.4
49.4
17.9
62.7
21.1
As 5 (C)
18.5
80.9
+50.8
129.7
57.8
65.6
41.7
13.5
78.9
41.7
23.3
85.0
21.1
1. A positive (negative) difference means that the team is better (worse) in an area during the minutes that the player is on the court. In some cases (e.g., offensive efficiency, OR%), this is reflected in a higher on-court number. In other cases (e.g., defensive efficiency, TO%), this is reflected in a lower on-court number.
36 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2010–2011
© 2010 Maple Street Press, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
the 2010–2011 TAR HEELS
John Henson #31 PASSING STATISTICS Close Asst / 40
Paint Asst / 40
Midrange Asst / 40
3-Pt. Asst / 40
FT Asst / 40
Asst. / 40
“Hockey” Asst. / 40
Pass TO / 40 (PTO)
Asst. Rate (%)
Pass TO (%)
% Open Created
Open FGA / 40
1.8
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.5
2.9
1.5
1.5
11.0
21.6
23.6
1.2
Pot. Close / 40 (PCA)
Pot. Paint / 40
Pot. Midrange / 40
Pot. 3-Pt. / 40
Pot. Asst. / 40
Asst. %
PCA:PTO
Entry Passes / 40
Entry Success %
Entry Fail %
Entry Reset %
2.6
1.1
0.6
1.2
7.0
41.2
1.73
4.7
29.0
53.6
17.4
TURNOVER STATISTICS # of TOs
TOs / 40
TO Rate (%)
Bad Pass
Type
22
1.50
9.9
Ball Handling
8
0.55
3.6
Bad Catch
7
0.48
3.2
Traveling
7
0.48
3.2
Offensive Foul
1
0.07
0.4
Live-ball TO
21
1.43
9.5
Dead-ball TO
24
1.64
10.8
Total
45
3.07
20.3
TOTAL SHOOTING BY AREA
SHOOTING BY LEVEL OF CONTESTEDNESS Type
2-Pt FG
2-Pt FG%
Open
39-45
86.7
1-1
Lightly Contested
32-58
55.2
Contested
12-40
Heavily Contested Total
3-Pt FG
3-Pt FG%
Area
FG-FGA
FGA / 40
%Shots
eFG%
Total Close
66-96
6.6
10.7
68.8
Total Non-Close Paint
13-45
3.1
5.0
28.9
Total Mid-Range
5-22
1.5
2.4
22.7
Total 3-Pt.
4-18
1.2
2.0
33.3
FGA / 40
eFG%
Total 0'-10'
74-126
8.6
14.0
58.7
100.0
3.1
88.0
Total 10'-20'
10-37
2.5
4.1
27.0
2-13
15.4
4.8
49.3
Total Paint
79-141
9.6
15.7
56.0
30.0
1-3
33.3
2.9
31.4
Total Non-Paint
9-40
2.7
4.4
27.5
1-20
5.0
0-1
0.0
1.4
4.8
Total Non-Close
22-85
5.8
9.4
28.2
84-163
51.5
4-18
22.2
12.4
49.7
ALL FGA
88-181
12.4
20.1
49.7
PerCENTAgES aND SHOTs BY AREA
0.0% 0-1
50.0% 2-4
0.0% 0-1 0.0% 0-1
40.0% 2-5 45.4% 5-11
0.0% 0-1 12.5% 1-8 0.0% 0-3
0.0% 0-3
33.3% 1-3
35.0% 4-16
0.0% 0-4
28.6% 4-14
65.7% 23-35 67.9% 72.7% 19-28 24-33 © 2010 Maple Street Press, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
0.0% 0-4 50.0% 1-2 50.0% 2-4
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2010–2011 | 37