By Adrian Atkinson

When Dexter Strickland tore his right ACL early in the second half at Virginia Tech, it was a devastating blow to the 6-foot-3 junior from Rahway, New Jersey, and Tar Heel fans everywhere. Strickland, Carolina’s best on-ball defender, had worked hard in the offseason to strengthen his midrange game (improving from 25.0% in 2011 to 42.9% in 2012 on shots from 10-20 feet) and his point guard skills. The loss of one of Carolina’s hardest-working and most coachable players is nothing but disheartening on a personal level. But, from a team perspective, are there any silver linings?

Table 1: UNC Efficiency by Backcourt Combination
Combo	Minutes	Off. Eff.	Def. Eff.	Net Eff.
Marshall-Strickland	361.1	113.1	88.7	24.4
Marshall-Bullock	207.6	122.4	91.4	31.0
Marshall-Hairston	19.7	116.5	97.1	19.4
Efficiency by 1/2/3 Combination
Marshall-Strickand-Barnes	300.3	114.1	86.2	27.9
Marshall-Bullock-Barnes	125.2	125.6	84.1	41.4
Marshall-Bullock-Hairston	82.4	117.3	102.7	14.6

When Strickland and point guard Kendall Marshall were sharing the starting backcourt, one of Carolina’s weaknesses was lack of scoring/perimeter shooting from its guards. With Marshall and Strickland on the court together, only 13.6% of UNC’s field goal attempts were from behind the arc. This lack of 3-point firepower had negative implications on floor spacing, allowing teams to more easily double down on Tyler Zeller/John Henson and defend Harrison Barnes off the dribble. The rate of attempted 3-pointers doubled in backcourt pairings featuring Marshall and Reggie Bullock (28.0%) or Marshall and P.J. Hairston (26.9%). As seen in Table 1, both of those backcourt combinations were more efficient offensively than the starting backcourt—significantly so in the case of Marshall-Bullock. Table 1 also breaks down UNC’s efficiency as a function of 1/2/3 combinations. Marshall-Strickland-Barnes has been paired together for nearly 40% of the team’s total minutes this season. The second most-used 1/2/3 combo has been Marshall-Bullock-Barnes—sharing the court for 16.5% of Carolina’s total minutes—followed by Marshall-Bullock-Hairston at 10.8%. The notable takeaways from Table 1 are that: 1.) Marshall-Bullock-Barnes is easily UNC’s best offensive combo; 2.) Marshall-Strickland-Barnes and Marshall-Bullock-Barnes are very similar (and both very good) in terms of defensive efficiency; and 3.) Marshall-Bullock-Hairston has really struggled as a defensive combination.   
With Strickland on the shelf, sophomore Bullock will move into the starting line-up.

Table 2: Old Starting 5 vs. New Starting 5
Line-up	Minutes	Pace	Off. Eff.	Def. Eff.	Net Eff.
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-Henson-Zeller	246.6	74.0	115.6	79.6	36.0
Marshall-Bullock-Barnes-Henson-Zeller	73.3	73.4	141.5	81.3	60.2
Offensve Four Factors
Line-up	2Pt%	3Pt%	FTA Rate	OR%	TO%
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-Henson-Zeller	52.9	35.4	35.2	40.3	16.7
Marshalll-Bullock-Barnes-Henson-Zeller	51.9	56.3	27.5	61.2	18.5
Defensive Four Factors
Line-up	2Pt% All.	3Pt% All.	Opp. FTA Rate	DR%	TOF%
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-Henson-Zeller	39.5	26.7	13.6	69.9	22.8
Marshall-Bullock-Barnes-Henson-Zeller	39.2	27.3	35.8	72.8	19.4

Table 2 summarizes how the old starting line-up (with Strickland) has compared to the new one (with Bullock). As seen, both have been fantastic on defense. But the “Bullock + Big 4” quintet has been lights-out on offense, too (and, thus, much more efficient overall). The main reasons why the Bullock line-up has been so successful offensively are its 56.3% shooting from behind the arc and its 61.2% offensive rebounding rate (i.e, that line-up gets over 60% of its own misses). Neither of those percentages is sustainable in the long-term, but a starting line-up with Bullock figures to be a better 3-point shooting and offensive rebounding unit than one with Strickland. Defensively, the “4 Factor” analysis with Strickland and Bullock looks eerily similar. The Heels force more turnovers with Strickland, but are a little stronger on the defensive backboards with Bullock. In general, the move from Strickland to Bullock appears to be an upgrade—at least from a pure +/- perspective. This is especially true against Pomeroy top 50 opponents—in 98.2 such minutes (against Michigan State, UNLV, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Long Beach State, Texas, Florida State, and Virginia Tech) the old starting line-up had a net efficiency of -11.5. The “Bullock + Big 4” line-up has a net efficiency of +43.4 in 46.7 minutes vs. the top 50. Against the ACC, both the old starting line-up (net efficiency of +40.7 in 47.7 minutes) and new starting line-up (+47.5 in 24.1 minutes) have been dominant. When neither of these quintets in on the floor, things have become dicey in ACC play-- a net efficiency of -20.4 in 88.1 minutes.

While the starting line-up with Strickland was a very efficient unit (especially against opponents outside the top 50), the “Bullock + Big 4” line-up has been UNC’s best this season (both in general, in the ACC, and against the top 50). Maximizing the minutes for this line-up seems like something that should help Carolina on the scoreboard. That is not to say the loss of Strickland will not hurt; it will, of course. It will mean more minutes for Hairston at the 2 (so far, only 9% of his total minutes have been there), a position that he has not shown he can defend consistently. While the defense should remain very strong when Bullock/Barnes are paired on the wings, the increased minutes for Hairston/Barnes and Bullock/Hairston figure to hurt the team’s overall defensive efficiency. More troubling, perhaps, is the impact that Strickland’s loss will have on the back-up point guard position. Dexter has played 95.2 minutes at the 1 this season, during which UNC leads 180-158 (net efficiency of +12.8, as compared to a +26.7 with Marshall at the point). Against the top 50, the team leads 66-60 in Strickland’s 35.8 minutes at point guard (net efficiency of +11.0). With Stilman White—who figures to get the first crack at the back-up role— on the court, Carolina has trailed 20-8 in 7.0 minutes versus the top 50 (net efficiency of -83.6) and 20-7 in 8.1 minutes against ACC foes (net efficiency of -93.0). Some of these have been mop-up minutes, and White figures to get a boost from playing more alongside UNC’s stars. Still, the thought of moving from Strickland to White at back-up point guard is a scary one for Carolina fans—especially considering that opponents have knocked down 13 of the 18 2-pointers they have attempted against White. In fact, sans Strickland, there are probably more defensive concerns at back-up point guard than offensive concerns.

By the time this goes to press, the Heels will have played their first game in the post-Strickland era—against rival NC State, no less. But it should take more than one game to answer some of the fundamental questions posed by Strickland’s unfortunate injury: Can Bullock keep up his stellar defensive play in an expanded role? Can Hairston pick up his defensive performance with increased experience/court time? Can White (or a point guard by committee with Barnes/Bullock/Watts/Hairston) buy Marshall a couple minutes each half on the bench without too big a loss on the scoreboard? Bullock’s move into the starting line-up might actually help the Heels. But unless several other players step up their games dramatically, it is hard to envision a scenario in which Carolina is a better team overall without Strickland.