Mizzou 2008-09: A Statistical Look Back - The Team
It is time to take one last look at the stats from the 2008-09 Mizzou basketball season, and then bid adieu and wait for spring football (followed by college football magazine season, and then two-a-days, and then the season) to nab our attention.
| Mizzou | Opp | |
| Points Per Minute |
2.04 | 1.69 |
| Points Per Possession (PPP) |
1.13 | 0.94 |
| Points Per Shot (PPS) |
1.30 | 1.20 |
| 2-PT FG% | 52.7% | 46.8% |
| 3-PT FG% | 35.3% | 30.3% |
| FT% | 67.2% | 67.4% |
| True Shooting % | ||
| Mizzou | Opp | |
| Assists | 700 | 451 |
| Steals | 388 | 236 |
| Turnovers | 449 | 695 |
| Ball Control Index (Assists + Steals) / TO |
2.42 | 0.99 |
| Mizzou | Opp | |
| Expected Offensive Rebounds | 491 | 490 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 486 | 484 |
| Difference | -5 | -6 |
- This includes all cupcakes, so naturally the numbers are a hair inflated. In all, this pretty much wraps everything into a neat little bow--this was an okay shooting team that played great perimeter defense, rebounded in a mediocre fashion...and dominated every single facet of the game when a shot wasn't in the air.
- Not only did opponents turn the ball over a lot, but they also weren't given a ton of baskets via ball movement--that's a paltry number of assists allowed. You could take some of Mizzou's defenders 1-on-1 if you were quick enough (Tyreke Evans, Jerel McNeal, Kemba Walker, I'm looking in your direction), but aside from a game here and there, you simply could not create many open shots through ball movement and patience.
You know what would be fun? If we could compare this Missouri team and its stats to Missouri teams of yore.
In fact, let's do just that.
Where did this team rank among Mizzou's best?
Thanks to a couple of different websites (including Ben Vollmayr-Lee's old site), I have Missouri's year-by-year team and player stats back to 1980-81 (29 seasons). I thought it would be fun to see where this team ranked in lots of different categories, compared to preview Mizzou squads. We'll start with per-game stats before moving to my preferred categories, the pace-independent per-possession stats.
Per Game Stats - Offense
Points Per Game
1. 1988-89 - 88.0
2. 1987-88 - 87.0
3. 1989-90 - 86.8
4. 2008-09 - 81.5
5. 1990-91 - 81.3
You're going to see this a lot--we talk about how fast-paced this Missouri team was, and they certainly were at times this year, but they could not hold a candle to those late-'80s teams. We'll call it the Billy Tubbs Era in the Big 8. Missouri was a plodding, methodical team in the early-'80s, and by about 1987, they played every bit as fast as Oklahoma and others in conference. Either way, this was the highest scoring Missouri team outside of the Billy Tubbs Era.
Rebounds Per Game
1. 1990-91 - 40.0
2. 1987-88 - 39.8
3. 2002-03 - 39.4
4. 2001-02 - 39.3
5. 1988-89 - 38.8
12. 2008-09 - 36.6
Right in the middle overall. Sounds about right.
Assists Per Game
1. 1989-90 - 20.0
2. 1988-89 - 19.1
3. 1990-91 - 18.9
4. 1987-88 - 18.4
5. 2008-09 - 18.4
The best-passing team outside the Billy Tubbs Era as well.
Turnovers Per Game
1. 2008-09 - 11.8
2. 1989-90 - 12.8
3. 1999-00 - 13.1
4. 2007-08 - 13.1
5. 2002-03 - 13.6
This team was a full turnover better than any other Missouri team in terms of turnovers. Ridiculously good. Combining high assists and low turnovers, you could possibly call this Missouri's best ball-handling team ever. That's what made them so good--yeah, they created chaos on defense, but they were completely in control on offense.
Blocks Per Game
1. 2002-03 - 4.4
2. 2001-02 - 4.3
3. 1990-91 - 4.3
4. 2003-04 - 4.3
5. 2000-01 - 4.0
7. 2008-09 - 3.7
Thanks as much to Keith Ramsey as anybody else, this was actually one of the best non-Arthur Johnson teams in terms of blocked shots.
BCI
1. 2008-09 - 2.42
2. 1989-90 - 2.17
3. 2007-08 - 1.91
4. 1987-88 - 1.82
5. 1999-00 - 1.73
As one would expect with what we saw in the assist and turnover numbers, this team was by far the best BCI team in Missouri's last 30 years. Two of the top three are Mike Anderson teams, and...we're seeing that 1989-90 team pop up quite a bit, aren't we?
Per-Game Stats - Defense
Points Per Game Allowed
1. 1981-82 - 59.7
2. 1983-84 - 62.8
3. 1982-83 - 63.4
4. 1998-99 - 63.6
5. 1980-81 - 64.9
7. 2008-09 - 67.7
As I mentioned, the early-'80s (the Stipo & Sundvold era) saw Missouri wield an extremely stifling half-court defense and ride it to three conference titles. The top three teams on this list were from that early-'80s period. But Mizzou's ridiculous scoring margin at home led them to being the #4 scoring offense in the last 29 years and the #7 scoring defense. That's, uhh, a pretty good combination.
Rebounds Per Game Allowed
1. 1982-83 - 27.9
2. 1983-84 - 29.2
3. 1981-82 - 29.5
4. 1984-85 - 29.9
5. 1985-86 - 31.2
22. 2008-09 - 37.1
Assists Per Game Allowed
1. 1980-81 - 10.2
2. 1981-82 - 10.5
3. 2008-09 - 11.9
4. 2007-08 - 12.3
5. 1993-94 - 12.5
It really is easy to see how opponents wore down. They couldn't create easy buckets off of ball movement, they couldn't force any turnovers of their own...
Turnovers Forced Per Game
1. 2006-07 - 18.9
2. 2008-09 - 18.3
3. 1990-91 - 18.0
4. 1999-00 - 17.7
5. 2007-08 - 17.1
Steals Per Game
1. 1990-91 - 11.5
2. 2008-09 - 10.2
3. 2006-07 - 10.0
4. 1998-99 - 9.1
5. 1991-92 - 9.0
Blocks Per Game Allowed
1. 1982-83 - 2.0
2. 1983-84 - 2.0
3. 1986-87 - 2.1
4. 1981-82 - 2.4
5. 1988-89 - 2.4
6. 2008-09 - 2.6
BCI Allowed
1. 2008-09 - 0.99
2. 2007-08 - 1.08
3. 2006-07 - 1.08
4. 1999-00 - 1.10
5. 1993-94 - 1.14
BCI! BCI! BCI!
Per-Possession Stats - Offense
Possessions Per Game
1. 1990-91 - 80.9
2. 1988-89 - 80.1
3. 1987-88 - 77.9
4. 1989-90 - 77.8
5. 1993-94 - 77.4
15. 2008-09 - 72.1
This might be the most shocking stat here. As much as we heard about how Missouri loves to push the tempo and push the tempo and push the tempo, the pace at which they played their games in the 2008-09 season was distinctly middle-of-the-road. A lot of 2008-09 was played in the halfcourt, and Missouri was able to kill there too.
Points Per Possession
1. 2001-02 - 1.13
2. 2008-09 - 1.13
3. 1987-88 - 1.12
4. 1989-90 - 1.12
5. 1988-89 - 1.10
Second-most efficient offense of the last 29 years.
Free Throw Attempts Per Field Goal Attempts (a.k.a. how good were they at getting to the line?)
1. 1995-96 - 0.51
2. 1981-82 - 0.51
3. 1980-81 - 0.50
4. 1986-87 - 0.49
5. 1984-85 - 0.49
23. 2008-09 - 0.37
Leo Lyons was one of the best in the country at drawing contact, but the rest of the team...not so much.
3-Point Shots Per Possession (since 1986-87)
1. 1999-00 - 0.36
2. 2001-02 - 0.33
3. 2004-05 - 0.32
4. 2002-03 - 0.31
5. 2000-01 - 0.31
10. 2008-09 - 0.27
Anybody shocked to see three Clarence Gilbert teams in the top five? Missouri wasn't particularly great at shooting the 3-ball, so it's good to see that they didn't shoot them at an exceedingly high rate.
Offensive Rebound Percentage (since 1996-97*)
1. 2001-02 - 7.9%
2. 2003-04 - 7.8%
3. 2002-03 - 7.4%
4. 2005-06 - 7.3%
5. 2000-01 - 7.2%
7. 2008-09 - 6.9%
* No offensive/defensive rebound splits until then.
Mizzou's rebounding mediocrity came on the defensive end of the ball--their offensive rebounding ability was above par. Oh, and once again the AJ era reaped severe benefits--he and Travon Bryant were on the prowl for four of Mizzou's top five offensive rebounding seasons.
Rebounds Per Possession
1. 2002-03 - 0.58
2. 2001-02 - 0.56
3. 2003-04 - 0.55
4. 2004-05 - 0.54
5. 2001-01 - 0.53
9. 2008-09 - 0.51
Assists Per Possession
1. 1989-90 - 0.26
2. 2008-09 - 0.26
3. 1982-83 - 0.24
4. 1988-89 - 0.24
5. 1987-88 - 0.24
Even putting aside tempo, this was as good a passing team as you'll see in black and gold. And basically the entire backcourt returns for 2009-10.
Turnovers Per Possession
1. 2008-09 - 0.16
2. 1989-90 - 0.16
3. 2007-08 - 0.18
4. 1999-00 - 0.18
5. 1987-88 - 0.19
BCI! BCI! BCI!
Steals Allowed Per Possession
1. 1999-00 - 0.08
2. 2007-08 - 0.08
3. 1993-94 - 0.09
4. 2008-09 - 0.09
5. 1982-83 - 0.09
Per-Possession Stats - Defense
Points Per Possession Allowed
1. 1981-82 - 0.88
2. 1998-99 - 0.89
3. 1990-91 - 0.90
4. 1980-81 - 0.91
5. 1991-92 - 0.91
7. 2008-09 - 0.94
Free Throw Attempts Per Field Goal Attempts (a.k.a. how good were they at preventing the opponent from getting to the line?)
1. 1981-82 - 0.29
2. 1984-85 - 0.29
3. 1991-92 - 0.30
4. 1985-86 - 0.31
5. 2002-03 - 0.31
24. 2008-09 - 0.40
Lots of shooting fouls.
3-Point Shots Per Possession Allowed
1. 1986-87 - 0.13
2. 1988-89 - 0.18
3. 1987-88 - 0.19
4. 1990-91 - 0.20
5. 1989-90 - 0.20
12. 2008-09 - 0.24
Offensive Rebound Percentage Allowed (Since 1996-97)
1. 2004-05 - 6.1%
2. 1999-00 - 6.4%
3. 2001-02 - 6.5%
4. 2003-04 - 6.6%
5. 2006-07 - 6.7%
7. 2008-09 - 6.9%
Rebounds Per Possession Allowed
1. 1984-85 - 0.42
2. 1982-83 - 0.42
3. 1985-86 - 0.42
4. 1988-89 - 0.43
5. 1981-82 - 0.43
21. 2008-09 - 0.52
Assists Per Possession Allowed
1. 1980-81 - 0.14
2. 1981-82 - 0.15
3. 1993-94 - 0.16
4. 2008-09 - 0.16
5. 2007-08 - 0.17
Turnovers Forced Per Possession
1. 2006-07 - 0.26
2. 2008-09 - 0.25
3. 1999-00 - 0.25
4. 2007-08 - 0.23
5. 1998-99 - 0.23
Steals Per Possession
1. 1990-91 - 0.14
2. 2008-09 - 0.14
3. 2006-07 - 0.14
4. 1998-99 - 0.13
5. 1999-00 - 0.12
Fouls Committed Per Possession
1. 2006-07 - 0.29
2. 2004-05 - 0.29
3. 2000-01 - 0.29
4. 1996-97 - 0.29
5. 2003-04 - 0.28
7. 2008-09 - 0.28
Shooting Stats - Offense
Points Per Shot
1. 1981-82 - 1.46
2. 1987-88 - 1.41
3. 1982-83 - 1.40
4. 1986-87 - 1.40
5. 1995-96 - 1.39
14. 2008-09 - 1.30
Average shooting team.
Field Goal %
1. 1982-83 - 54.0%
2. 1981-82 - 53.9%
3. 1988-89 - 52.4%
4. 1985-86 - 52.4%
5. 1987-88 - 52.0%
13. 2008-09 - 47.3%
Average shooting team.
3-Point FG %
1. 1987-88 - 42.0%
2. 2001-02 - 39.1%
3. 1994-95 - 38.8%
4. 1989-90 - 38.2%
5. 2000-01 - 38.0%
17. 2008-09 - 35.3%
Below average 3-point shooting team.
Free Throw %
1. 1996-97 - 75.8%
2. 1981-82 - 74.3%
3. 1984-85 - 72.9%
4. 1991-92 - 71.5%
5. 1999-00 - 71.0%
24. 2008-09 - 67.2%
Below average free throw shooting team. But we knew that.
Shooting Stats - Defense
Points Per Shot Allowed
1. 1981-82 - 1.05
2. 1998-99 - 1.09
3. 1980-81 - 1.10
4. 1991-92 - 1.12
5. 2002-03 - 1.12
18. 2008-09 - 1.20
Field Goal % Allowed
1. 1998-99 - 39.3%
2. 1992-93 - 40.4%
3. 2002-03 - 40.8%
4. 1990-91 - 41.3%
5. 1991-92 - 41.6%
7. 2008-09 - 41.8%
3-Point FG % Allowed
1. 2008-09 - 30.3%
2. 2007-08 - 30.9%
3. 1998-99 - 31.8%
4. 2000-01 - 32.1%
5. 1999-00 - 33.0%
An interesting mix here--opponents shot horribly from long range and poorly overall, yet averaged a decent number of points per shot. It all goes back to Mizzou allowing a lot of free throw attempts.
--
Tomorrow, we look at the players, and we play some fun games with similarity scores.
0 recs |
8 comments
|
Comments
Question...
I like the stats pointing out that Mizzou took care of the ball and frustrated opponents (as I noticed when KSU played in Columbia). I think that’s a relevant stat in the sense that it will frustrate teams, like KSU, that are young and turnover prone to begin with.
I am curious about one thing though. and maybe it’s just something to explore, but what about the teams that beat MU. For the most part, were they more experienced teams by and large? UConn started a lot of upperclassmen, and I think Xavier did too. So it would be harder to win a game where the point is to frustrate the other team into submission because more experienced teams don’t seem as affected by that.
Bring on the Cats
"Without getting into specifics, my exit involves a McFlurry machine and a video tape of risque commercials from overseas." -- Jack Donaghy
by Panjandrum on Apr 3, 2009 11:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
An excess of response
Losses were Xavier, Illinois, Nebraska, K-State, Kansas, Texas A&M, and UConn.
Xavier had 4 upperclassmen, 3 of which were big guys. I’m not sure who their starters were, but that’s not a ton of experience. Also, the FMOH worked pretty well against them – we just couldn’t close it out with free throws. I’d chalk that up to inexperience on our part. Or just bad free throw shooting.
Illinois had 6 upperclassmen, but the guy that really hurt us was McCamey, a sophomore. This was one of the games where the shots just weren’t falling, and we didn’t deal with it well – just kept shooting and missing. In other words, I’d say our inexperience lost it more than their experience won it.
Nebraska is a lot more experienced, with 10 upperclassmen. The problem here was that we didn’t play our game, we played theirs. Whether that’s experience or not, I don’t know, but we did stomp them pretty thoroughly when they came to Mizzou.
K-State you obviously know about – they’re inexperienced, but were hot when we played them in Manhattan, and then got stomped when they played in Columbia. Similar thing to Illinois – our shots weren’t falling, and K-State’s were.
Kansas only returned 2 starters, so experience clearly wasn’t the issue. This one was, I think, a combination of Kansas being good (much as it pains me to admit that) and Allen Fieldhouse being a brutal place to play.
Texas A&M had 7 upperclassmen. I think the issue here was that we no longer had anything to play for, and A&M was playing for their lives. By the time we woke up (and we did – almost 60 points in the second half), the hole had gotten too deep. A&M just straight up wanted it more than us.
UConn had 12 upperclassmen. Their experience undoubtedly played a role, but I don’t think that’s the whole story, if for no other reason than we did a pretty good job doing our thing, too – the tempo was nice and high where we liked it and they didn’t. What lost it for us is that we couldn’t stop Kemba Walker, and then couldn’t hit the open-look threes when we got ‘em. Sometimes that happens, but the game could have just as easily gone the other way if we’d hit a couple of those.
I don’t really think that experience is a good pattern there. Certainly I can’t argue that experienced teams are better able to weather the insanity, but look at some of the big wins – Memphis had 7 upperclassmen, as did Marquette and Oklahoma. Texas had 6.
I don’t think the issue is frustration so much as exhaustion. Some teams deal with it well, and some don’t. And sometimes our shots are falling, and sometimes they’re not. But I think the bottom line is that Mizzou had one helluva team this year that got burned a few times because of their inexperience but could keep pace with a lot of other really good teams.
If there's one thing I've realized this year, it's that I really do hate Cole Aldrich.
by jaeger on Apr 3, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I appreciate the detailed response...
that was good stuff.
So, the correlation wasn’t really strong there. The game in Manhattan was an aberration. KSU played the best game of the season against MU that night. I thought that might have been an outlier.
Bring on the Cats
"Without getting into specifics, my exit involves a McFlurry machine and a video tape of risque commercials from overseas." -- Jack Donaghy
by Panjandrum on Apr 3, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing KSU and KU both did in beating us...
…was attacking our pace with more pace. KSU pressed us before we could press them, and KU used long outlet passes to beat us back down the court before we could beat them. It was a very aggressive strategy, and it worked.
That, and KSU didn’t miss a shot for like 12 minutes in the first half (or that’s what it felt like). That helps too.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
by Bill C. on Apr 3, 2009 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
great analysis
one qualm: if there have only been offensive rebounding stats since 1996, then 7th isn’t particularly good, either.
by calim on Apr 3, 2009 11:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think
That 7th is good, considering that rebounds were going to be a huge concern this year.
I'm the guy that keeps Mr. Death in his pocket.
by Mizzou Grad on Apr 3, 2009 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but 7th of 13 isn't near as good as 7th of 29
One is roughly the 50th percentile, the other is 75th.
But I spose you might be right that we should be happy that we got all the way up to average here, and didn’t completely bottom out completely.
by Wan Ihite on Apr 3, 2009 8:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, rebounding was distinctly average...
…I was overstating the positive on that one. Makes sense that we’d only be decent at offensive rebounds, however, considering how many 17-footers our big men took…
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
by Bill C. on Apr 3, 2009 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 













