Study Hall: Mizzou vs Baylor
Losses like these are, in the moment, the hardest to take. No, this loss doesn't cripple Mizzou by any means, but once it was clear that a blowout wasn't in the works (which was what I feared, especially when it was clear Baylor had come to play), this was a golden opportunity for Mizzou to steal a win and get that much closer to NCAA Lock status. Obviously it should be noted, though, that Baylor played VERY well today, and they were still one shot/pass/turnover/whatever away from losing to Mizzou.
And once again, we had no winner in the Trifecta battle. Now you're understanding why it's such a long-shot bet in horse racing too!
Baylor 64, Mizzou 62
| Mizzou |
BU | |
| Points Per Minute |
1.55 | 1.60 |
| Points Per Possession (PPP) |
1.08 | 1.11 |
| Points Per Shot (PPS) |
1.22 | 1.33 |
| 2-PT FG% | 45.9% | 51.9% |
| 3-PT FG% | 42.9% | 28.6% |
| FT% | 76.9% | 85.7% |
| True Shooting % | 54.7% | 55.9% |
| Mizzou | BU | |
| Assists | 15 | 9 |
| Steals | 5 | 6 |
| Turnovers | 10 | 13 |
| Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO |
2.00 | 1.15 |
| Mizzou | BU | |
| Expected Offensive Rebounds | 10 | 10 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 8 | 13 |
| Difference | -2 | +3 |
Tough way to lose.
Baylor's last possession was gut-wrenching in about seven different ways -- 1) Laurence Bowers should have been called for a foul on the Mizzou end of the court but wasn't, and Baylor got a break-out possession because of the no-call; 2) the ensuing blocking call on Kim English was VERY questionable (it almost seemed like a make-up call for the no-call on the other end ... only it hurt Mizzou a lot more); and 3) the three offensive rebounds off of the missed free throw are a terrible way to lose a game. Mizzou held its own on the glass in terms of expected rebounds (at the time of Baylor's last possession, Mizzou was only -2 on the expected boards for the game), and Justin Safford actually rather effectively blocked out Quincy Acy but was crouched too far down to jump for the board when it rather violently bounced off the back of the rim. Acy's miss led to two more offensive boards, and eventually one went in. If ANYTHING different happens in that sequence -- if Bowers' foul gets called, if Dunn makes his second FT, if Dunn's miss hangs closer to the rim, if Acy's miss doesn't hang in the air forever, closer to the rim -- then Mizzou has a better chance at winning the game. Alas.
Mizzou was entirely content to slow the tempo.
Looking at the stats, it really does seem like the game played out in Mizzou's favor. They shot over 40% from 3-point range, over 45% on 2-pointers (which isn't great, but against Baylor it isn't terrible), and over 75% on free throws; they dominated the BCI battle; they even held their own on the glass for the most part (until the final possession, anyway) ... but the most interesting part of the entire game was how they completely shut down their own running game.
This game was played at a 57-58 possession rate, which is about 15 possessions slower than what Mizzou prefers. I figure there are three main reasons for this:
- Baylor did a wonderful job of handling Mizzou's press for the most part -- they mainly just got the ball to Tweety Carter and pulled everybody back, minimizing Mizzou's attempts at traps; it's a great strategy as long as you have a ball-handler the level of Carter.
- BU did a strong job of getting back on defense.
- Mizzou kept everyone back to help with rebounding ... and for a majority of the time, it worked out.
My one regret with this strategy was that Mizzou still could have tried to break out and run more after securing the rebound. On what was almost the game-turning play of the game, Mizzou got a defensive rebound, and J.T. Tiller found Kim English racing down the court for a breakaway. He got the rare and-one with an intentional foul with 0:45 left (my view of the call: technically it was correct -- officials have been told to call this more liberally, and while LaceDarius Dunn was clearly in the vicinity of the ball, he was just trying to pin the arms down and prevent the lay-up ... that said, that's a REALLY tough call to make as an official ... requires so much subjectivity), and if Mizzou could have scored on the ensuing possession, they'd have likely won the game (or at least gone to OT).
Even though Baylor was doing a good job of getting back on D, I still wish Mizzou would have more continuously tested them. As long as you're smart about pulling the ball out if you don't have a man advantage, then there's no downside to it, but Mizzou walked the ball up the court most of the time, and Baylor managed to get away with playing just seven players. That should NEVER happen for a Mizzou opponent.
An oddly small rotation.
The other result of the slow-paced game: only seven Mizzou players played 5 minutes or more, and Mizzou's five primary players (Taylor-Tiller-English-Bowers-Safford) all played at least 29 minutes. Very non-Mizzou-like. We can see how it happened, but it still didn't end up doing Mizzou too many favors, especially considering Marcus Denmon only got 17 minutes and four shot attempts.
Mizzou Player Stats
| Player | AdjGS* | GmSc/Min | Line |
| Laurence Bowers | 13.8 | 0.46 | 30 Min, 10 Pts (5-for-7 FG), 5 Reb (2 Off), 4 Ast, 2 TO |
| Zaire Taylor | 13.4 | 0.39 | 34 Min, 15 Pts (6-for-13 FG, 3-for-5 3PT), 2 Reb, 2 Ast |
| Justin Safford | 12.7 | 0.40 | 32 Min, 13 Pts (4-for-11 FG, 5-for-6 FT), 6 Reb (2 Off), 2 Stl, 2 TO |
| Kim English | 8.3 | 0.27 | 31 Min, 13 Pts (4-for-12 FG, 1-for-6 3PT, 4-for-6 FT), 3 Ast, 2 Reb |
| Marcus Denmon | 8.0 | 0.47 | 17 Min, 5 Pts (2-for-4 FG, 1-for-2 3PT), 2 Reb |
| J.T. Tiller | 5.5 | 0.19 | 29 Min, 6 Pts (2-for-3 FG), 3 Reb, 3 Ast, 4 TO |
| Miguel Paul | 0.0 | 0.00 | 4 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-0 FG) |
| Mike Dixon | -0.1 | -0.04 | 4 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-0 FG) |
| Steve Moore | -0.6 | -0.14 | 4 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-0 FG) |
| Keith Ramsey | -1.4 | -0.09 | 15 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-1 FG), 3 Reb |
* AdjGS = a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It takes points, assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls into account to determine an individual's "score" for a given game. The "adjustment" in Adjusted Game Score is simply matching the total game scores to the total points scored in the game, thereby redistributing the game's points scored to those who had the biggest impact on the game itself, instead of just how many balls a player put through a basket.
- Laurence Bowers is the master of the quiet contribution. I wasn't sure where he would finish in the trifecta, but I was pretty confident it wouldn't be first place. Instead, his efficient shooting (he had a dunk blocked and short-armed a jumper over Udoh, and that was it) and team-leading four assists got him the top spot. Mizzou's interior passing in the second half was instrumental in keeping things close while Baylor's offense clicked, and it gives you confidence that zone defenses won't be nearly as effective in the future as they have at times in the past.
- In the end, 15 points on 13 shots isn't that great, but it was still a lovely bounce-back game for Zaire Taylor, who was aggressive on the offensive end and actually showed some legs that he hadn't shown for the last three games while suffering through a stomach bug. He was 2-for-16 in those three games, so 6-for-13 is obviously a huge step in the right direction. With Mizzou getting a combined 8-for-23 performance from Safford and English, they needed everything Taylor gave them.
- Another confusing game from Justin Safford. Most of his 11 shots were extremely makeable, and for a "guard in a big man's body," he should have done much better than 4-for-11. Three early Saffy misses helped Baylor build an early cushion that they milked all the way to the end (First 10 minutes: BU 22, MU 14; Last 30 minutes: MU 48, BU 42) ... but his foul-drawing and FT-making ability were huge later in the game, and his six boards led the team. I get very frustrated that Safford is shooting only 40.7% in Big 12 play -- he's got such a pretty jumper, and he's shown in the past that he can shoot better than he has this year -- but he's certainly showing signs of a better all-around game than I would have guessed he'd have 12 months ago. He's learning how to be more physical, but he's still a work in progress.
- Kim English had a shooting game a lot like what Marcus Denmon had against Iowa State -- most of his 12 shots were solid looks, and yet he only made four of them. I noted once or twice when he wasn't going straight up, but regardless, his good-looking jumpers didn't go in either. He showed much more aggression in terms of driving to the basket and drawing fouls, but his jumper just wasn't there ... and considering how things played out, that's a damn shame.
- So ... where was Marcus Denmon? He made two of four shots, grabbed two boards and had a steal and assist in 17 minutes ... but only played 17 minutes. I guess he was the primary victim of the game's shrunken number of possessions, but it's a damn shame that things played out this way considering how poorly English shot for a majority of the game.
- If Denmon was victimized by the shrunken rotation, Mike Dixon was assassinated by it. He ran the offense pretty well while he was out there, but two quick fouls took him out in the first half, and I don't believe he ever saw the court in the second. With the way Zaire Taylor was playing on offense and J.T. Tiller on defense, it's hard to complain too much about this, but it's a shame we couldn't have at least gotten him a heat-check jumper somewhere in there.
- Get well soon, Keith Ramsey. You clearly didn't really have it today, still likely hobbled after the ankle injury against Iowa State, and we could have used the hyper-aggressive Ramsey today.
Three Keys Revisited
From Friday's preview.
Make Your Jumpers
Mizzou not only shot a decent percentage, but they were much more aggressive around the hoop than I expected them to be. I had no problem with a majority of the game's ball movement, and most of the time, English will make the open jumpers he missed today.
Get Some Second Chances
Mizzou almost broke even on the offensive glass. They grabbed 8 offensive boards, compared to the 'expected' 10, and ... well, 1-2 more would have probably made the difference in the game.
Double Them Up on BCI
Speaking of 1-2 making a difference ... one more steal would have given Mizzou almost an exact doubling of Baylor in the BCI battle, and it would have likely made the difference in the game as well. It was nice to see Mizzou doing the things they did today, especially considering how well Baylor was playing, but as I've said before, 2-point losses sting a lot worse than 15-pointers, and while Mizzou almost did everything they needed to do in terms of the keys to the game -- they were basically one jumper, one second chance, or one steal away from victory -- it didn't happen, and it stings.
And since I don't really have anywhere else to put this, here's a quick digression: when LaceDarius Dunn grabs Zaire Taylor's arm while driving, then jumps into him, it simply cannot be called a defensive foul. I realize this goes into the books as a 'crafty' play because it worked (and it will more often than not), but ... ugh. Anyway ...
Mizzou Stats - Conference Play
| Mizzou |
Opp. | |
| Points Per Minute |
1.84 | 1.74 |
| Points Per Possession (PPP) |
1.07 | 1.01 |
| Points Per Shot (PPS) |
1.24 | 1.25 |
| 2-PT FG% | 43.1% | 45.3% |
| 3-PT FG% | 35.9% | 33.7% |
| FT% | 73.6% | 70.3% |
| True Shooting % | 52.7% | 52.4% |
| Mizzou | Opp. | |
| Assists/Gm | 12.9 | 10.7 |
| Steals/Gm | 8.9 | 6.7 |
| Turnovers/Gm | 12.5 | 17.8 |
| Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO |
1.74 | 0.98 |
| Mizzou | Opp. | |
| Expected Offensive Rebounds/Gm | 13.6 | 12.9 |
| Offensive Rebounds/Gm | 12.8 | 14.6 |
| Difference | -0.8 | +1.7 |
After ten conference games last year, Mizzou's per-possession averages were 1.11 points on offense, 0.96 on defense. That's basically 2-3 points per game worse on offense, 2-3 on defense. They are shooting 8% lower on 2-pointers and 4% lower on 3-pointers. They are averaging five fewer assists and one fewer steal per game, but they are giving up two fewer assists per game. In all, their BCI advantage was 1.22 last year (2.25 to 1.03), and it is just 0.76 this year. They have just about broken even on the glass, though they are still a little worse -- they are actually 1.8 offensive rebounds per game better, but they are 2.4 defensive rebounds per game worse.
Overall, Mizzou is just a hair worse in most categories, and considering the fact that three of their four losses were one-possession games in the final minute, you can see how just a slight statistical regression can bump you from 8-2 in conference a year ago to 6-4 this year.
The good news, of course, is that things are improving for the most part. Bowers' rebound rate has improved in recent games, and ... well, Zaire Taylor is not likely to shoot 12.5% from the field over another 3-game span in his career. But in the end, our fears for this team -- that they would be worse from the field and worse on the glass despite staying about the same in terms of defense -- have been dead-on accurate.
| Player | AdjGS* | GmSc/Min | Line |
| Laurence Bowers | 13.4 | 0.59 | 22.6 MPG, 10.6 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 1.3 APG, 1.3 BPG, 1.2 TOPG |
| Marcus Denmon | 10.6 | 0.45 | 23.4 MPG, 10.5 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 1.4 APG |
| Justin Safford | 10.5 | 0.43 | 24.4 MPG, 11.0 PPG, 5.2 RPG, 1.2 APG, 1.4 TOPG |
| Zaire Taylor | 10.4 | 0.34 | 30.1 MPG, 8.9 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 3.0 APG, 1.5 SPG |
| Kim English | 9.9 | 0.40 | 24.8 MPG, 13.0 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 1.3 APG, 1.7 TOPG |
| J.T. Tiller | 5.8 | 0.23 | 24.7 MPG, 7.6 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 2.6 APG, 1.4 SPG, 2.4 TOPG |
| Keith Ramsey | 5.5 | 0.23 | 23.9 MPG, 4.7 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 2.3 TOPG |
| Mike Dixon | 4.0 | 0.29 | 13.8 MPG, 5.3 PPG |
| Steve Moore | 1.2 | 0.16 | 7.4 MPG, 1.1 PPG, 1.5 RPG |
| Miguel Paul | 0.6 | 0.07 | 8.2 MPG, 1.9 PPG |
In a small sample size last year, Laurence Bowers was averaging 0.56 AdjGS/minute last year, and he's not only maintained that but improved this year. As a sophomore, he is ahead of where Leo Lyons was as a senior, and that makes me incredibly optimistic for the future. But this year, our leading 'scorer' only posts 13.4 per game -- last year, we were getting 19.0 per game from DeMarre Carroll. Guard play has actually improved -- Mizzou's top two guards (Denmon, Taylor) are averaging 21.0 AdjGS/game, while their top two (Tiller, Taylor) averaged only 18.5 last year. But last year's top two bigs (Carroll, Lyons) were posting an incredible 31.5 per game last year, while this year's (Bowers, Safford) have managed only 23.9.
Summary
This was a nice effort against a really good Baylor team (mid-game, I got a text from a friend, saying "How the f*** have they lost four in conference??"), but knowing you were one play away from a win burns. As it is, Mizzou needs to go 3-3 in their final six conference games to reach the 9-7 necessary for a likely NCAA tourney bid.
I will say, however, that Mizzou was only a 10-seed in this week's NCAA committee mock bracket, meaning they may not be held in as high esteem by the committee as most bracketologists hold them (in all, the Big 12 is being QUITE disrespected -- Baylor was only a 7-seed in the mock bracket as well, which is ridiculous). If Mizzou goes 9-7 by beating only ISU, NU and CU down the stretch, then loses in the first round of the conference tourney against CU, OU, or whoever, then they might be on the outside looking in. I'm maintaining the "Three more wins and in" meme here, but it would really help if one of those wins came against Texas, Kansas State or Kansas, even if it means a loss at ISU or NU. Otherwise, they'll at the very least need to win Wednesday night in the conference tourney to feel safe.
55 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great bounceback game for Zaire today.
but yeah, what a depressing way to lose.
Great Oden's Raven I love Mike "The Predator" Dixon!
we're looking much better in the half court offense.
the game was played to baylor’s pace, and we still had a chance to win at the end. proud of our guys.
Nobody calls me Lebowski. You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man
A 7 foot man
would have gotten the rebound there at the end. Get One. Period. Otherwise your team will continue to suffer losses such as these.
7-footers Nolan Richardson recruited in his entire career at Arkansas: 0
Sweet Sixteen appearances or better: 6
Do we need more rebounding talent? Guys with better rebounding instincts? Absolutely. Are we going to stock up on 7-footers? It’s never. Going. To happen. We may end up with one or two here and there (we’ve already offered one in the 2012 class), but … we damn near beat an extremely big team in the Elite Eight last year, and the reason we lost was because one of their guards caught fire down the stretch and we couldn’t match it. This particular team is not good enough on the boards, but that doesn’t mean that this type of team can’t be good enough on the boards to succeed.
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
Yes, however,
Bill you’re directly comparing arkansas under richardson to missouri. yes he was his mentor.. but he is NOT the same person. How has that success translated to Missouri? 0 Final Fours.
We should get rid of the bum
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Not sure why I'm engaging this...
…because if you’re honestly COMPLAINING THAT MIKE ANDERSON HASN’T MADE A FINAL FOUR YET, then you’re not really interested in having an honest conversation, but…
http://www.rockmnation.com/2009/4/1/814959/mike-anderson-vs-nolan-richardson
Nolan Richardson after three years: 52-39 (0.571), 1 NCAA tournament bid (0-1 record)
Mike Anderson after three years: 65-35 (0.650), 1 NCAA tournament bid (3-1 record)
Anderson’s teams have, to date, forced more turnovers, created many more assists, and turned the ball over less, while giving up a slightly higher FG% and rebounding a bit worse. He took over a worse program than Nolan and has achieved a high level of play faster, but…hey…Nolan was only a “mentor”, and MA hasn’t made a Final Four yet, so clearly he’s never going to succeed unless he changes his whole recruiting philosophy…
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
yeah we should've just let MA go to Georgia.
We would’ve been better off in the long run.
/complete sarcasm
Great Oden's Raven I love Mike "The Predator" Dixon!
by pinkelposse on Feb 14, 2010 12:46 PM CST up reply actions
I don't believe they need to change their recruiting philosophy
I said nothing of the sort. I am saying a big guy is the missing element on our team. that’s all we need, 1 for now. we can continue our style of play the way it is, but you can’t say there is not a missing element. we have the talent to get to the final four, but not the heighth. I don’t have a problem with the style of play at all and no pinkelposse i don’t have a problem with anderson. I have a problem with never having somebody who can consistantly get rebounds.
by dhartley987 on Feb 14, 2010 11:45 PM CST up reply actions
and pinkelposse
I don’t have a problem with anderson at all. i like his style of basketball, just FYI
by dhartley987 on Feb 14, 2010 11:46 PM CST up reply actions
Troll much?
Seriously, I don’t understand what the appeal is in going to a website with a pretty clear cultural mindset toward Mizzou sports, and coaching in particular, just to post things that are either grossly uninformed or designed to start fights. Grow up, learn your sh*t, or go somewhere else.
On topic: Nolan Richardson took 5 years to reach his first Final Four (hired in 1985, first Final Four in 1990) in a program that was in a lot better shape than Missouri was when Anderson took over.
Making fun of the "Mizzou Needs a Fullback" Club since...well, for a while, anyway.
Maybe we should get a 7-footer
who can also play fullback for the football team
/sarcasm
Seriously, I remember two 7-footers — Sammy and Simeon — and I remember them doing … well … not a lot.
by jschooltiger on Feb 15, 2010 12:37 PM CST up reply actions
I think the bigger question here:
Is what Anderson’s line of thinking was for his lineup. By putting Safford and Bowers in the game, you’re optimizing your forward lineup for perimeter offense, presumably. I’ve got to assume that’s a function of just assuming either A) Dunn would hit his FTs or B) you’re coming up with the rebound anyway.
I think it was a shooting lineup, not a rebounding lineup, and that’s where the question can come into play a little bit.
Ramsey wasn't worth much today, and Moore hadn't played all second half...
…did we have any other options, especially since Steeeeeeve isn’t much of a rebounder (yet) anyway?
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
For the most part, I agree.
That situation was REALLY hurt by a hobbled Ramsey.
I just wanted to play devil’s advocate a little bit and get away from the mob that’s yelling at Safford for being what he is.
Ramesy's been quite unproductive in the past few games in my opinion
Great moments are born from great opportunity.
We have a guy
on scholarship right now, recruited expressly to rebound. John Underwood. At what point do we allow the less-heralded freshmen that can fill tremendous holes in our performances to do what they do? Stone can get to the basket. Underwood can grab boards. What is it that they are missing that prohibits CMA from playing them?
Even Rocky had a montage.
by Other Side of the Pillow on Feb 14, 2010 1:23 AM CST up reply actions
Conditioning.
Chicago White Sox Examiner — IT'S A JEEP THING YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND
by UribeAuction on Feb 14, 2010 2:08 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, you really have to give CMA the benefit of the doubt on his rotations
Based on his history, you pretty much have to say if a guy can play CMA will play him. If he isn’t playing it’s probably NOT due to any sort of anti-freshman bias.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Yeah--
This is why I should not post when my mind is wandering. I had meant to be weighing in on the pro-CMA side… then my mind began to stroll away. It started with wondering why we were watching 3 hours of Fringe instead of the Olympics that had been recorded from the evening session… and should have stopped there. I trust CMA explicitly with our basketball program. My (somewhat inebriated) mind seemed to remember that the buzz on Underwood was rebounding and blocked shots… then I honestly wondered why Stone and Underwood were not getting any (even small amount) of minutes with the relative non-health of the forward line recently, purely on a curiosity level. Here is an example of where I should have left well enough alone earlier… but earlier I had the benefit (?) of Liquid English™ and did not stop talking :)
Even Rocky had a montage.
by Other Side of the Pillow on Feb 14, 2010 10:35 AM CST up reply actions
Maybe I am wrong on this but isn't one of them going to transfer out?
We will be short one scholarship if we are still recruiting a Juco big-body, right?
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
We have no idea.
There are rumors that Missouri is still on the recruiting trail, but that is most likely a “just in case” situation … we have no idea who might be transferring, if anybody.
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
Thanks for the correction.
I should stop listening to rumors.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
It's worth saying though...
Nolan may not have technically had a 7-footer, but he once started a twin towers front court (late in his time at Ark.) with two 6’10+ players.
Although I agree with your overall point about this style of play (there are all kinds of precedents for winning with small ball in college hoops), one CLEAR difference between “40 minutes of hell” and “fastest 40” is the former’s reliance on a power game. Nolan placed a bigger emphasis on throwing big bodies at you that could play his style. CMA is FAR more guard-oriented. He’s more interested in creating turnovers than was his mentor, in my opinion.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
We need a FULLBACK!!!!!111!!!!
Rawr…
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
oops...
didn’t see pinkelposse beat me to that one.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I am sure height helps, but isn't rebounding a lot more than just height:
anticipation of the bounce, blocking out, strength, aggresiveness, etc… Dennis Rodman was just 6’8" and 240 and he was a monster. I think all our bigs can improve in the rebounding category, and they have been improving.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
I swear to God if Safford starts the next game...
Bowers has consistently played better and Safford was turrible today.
Making you feel old since 9/26/09
I don't really care who starts...
…I just care who gets starter minutes, and Bowers has certainly gotten those. But right now, if Ramsey can’t put in major minutes, then we’re getting a lot of Bowers-Saffy no matter what.
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
Safford is really, really aggravating
but he’s about the only guy on the team who gets to the line (at least it seems that way).
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Not really
I think all of us are at least growing a small spot of hate for him…. If he would just play like what he is
I don't understand the disproportional hate on Saffy
I think we can point to short-comings for each of our players. I think it was a big change from the 3rd contributor behind DeMarre and Leo to being the primary big man. I like Bill’s balanced approached toward Saffy. He can be infuriating, but he does contribute quite a bit. Remember that they faced a 7’ and a 6’10".
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
Leader?
Do we have a leader on this team? Sometimes I fear this is our problem. Alas, I didn’t see the game but that’s what it feels like sometimes.
Mike doesn’t want that. He doesn’t need to go out and sign a bunch of McDonald’s All-Americans. He just needs to go find a few Burger King-type guys and he’ll get it done.
by tigers and chiefs fan on Feb 13, 2010 7:55 PM CST via mobile reply actions
I think Tiller's started to step into that role this week.
He was great against ISU, and while his stats were only okay today, he had some tough defense and the big 3 down the stretch. And Zaire was certainly trying to lead today. If the seniors finally begin to assert themselves here, that would be pretty awesome…better late than never…
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
agreed about jt, to a degree. a sr leader HAS to find a way to coax that reverse layup through the net.
if he had done that, i think we’re happy right now.
Nobody calls me Lebowski. You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man
by threadkiller on Feb 13, 2010 8:01 PM CST up reply actions
With Udoh AND Acy collapsing down there...
…that was a REALLY tough reverse layup. Not saying he should or shouldn’t have made it, but that had some severe degree of difficulty to it.
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
no doubt. just frustrated it didn't even come close.
maybe a jump stop, then go up stronger? draw a foul? idk. still good to see the fight out of our team today. should be a great m/up wed. night with the shorthorns.
Nobody calls me Lebowski. You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man
by threadkiller on Feb 13, 2010 8:10 PM CST up reply actions
Drawing some contact would have been lovely...
…though I don’t know if we could have counted on actually getting a call on something non-extreme there in the last 20 seconds…honestly, pulling up for a short jumper might have been the best option, though getting a lay-up, even a reverse, was still a solid option.
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
Your articles always provide much needed closure after losses like this..
..now, onto Texas, and me dawning my Waldo outfit in the student section (2-0 whilest wearing it)
"If you believe in telekinesis, raise my hand."
Yes, they do make your craving to shoot puppies with tranquilizer darts
much less tempting.
He didn't need the backboard on that one!
Meh...
Gabe was making this argument at PowerMizzou, and I suppose it’s a “must win” if you are into the “they need X wins to ‘feel comfortable’.” I try to stay away from those sorts of games. Every loss makes the hill a bit steeper. Still, I think Mizzou should be fine with a .500 or better record regardless of where the wins/losses occur. At the same time, the closer to .500 MU is in the regular season the better the performance in the B12 tourney has to be.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
idk about that.
cu gave ksu all they wanted for 22 minutes y’day in manhattan. cu STINKS. i think we stand more of a chance there than against kansass in como. of course, i feel both games are entirely winnable.
Nobody calls me Lebowski. You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man
by threadkiller on Feb 14, 2010 1:04 PM CST up reply actions
to tell you the truth
i’m more concerned about brain farts in lincoln or ames. i know the concentration levels will be high against ku and ksu, but there’s really no excuse for losing the two aforementioned games. other than a bad case of h.u.b.s. who knows? maybe we will win out. we caught fire about this time last year.
Nobody calls me Lebowski. You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man
by threadkiller on Feb 14, 2010 1:28 PM CST up reply actions
We should also be careful in the CU home game
just because we played a great game in CO does not mean that we can relax at home. There are no give-mes in Big12.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
noted
however, cu is about as close as it gets. especially at home.
Nobody calls me Lebowski. You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man
by threadkiller on Feb 14, 2010 4:11 PM CST up reply actions
I am really proud of our guys
Sure, there were opportunities missed in the end. But they played tough. I can point to contributions from everyone. Despite the loss, I really liked how we played and attacked even against Udoh and Lomers (almost fouled out). I was not disappointed at the effort or the way we played only in the result.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
As always, insightful comments from Bill C.
Mizzou’s interior passing … gives you confidence that zone defenses won’t be nearly as effective in the future as they have at times in the past.
Yes. The passing seemed to be much more effective then the rotation around the perimeter. They attacked the zone aggressively with all sorts of passes, screens, and cuts. It was a really nice O performance. I think I am seeing our shooters take advantage more of screens up top.
Saffy got his head knocked in the beginning. I don’t remember if he missed shots before or afterwards. But I agree that he should be able to shoot much better while facing the basket.
This game did not sting as much for me because we did not lose the game as much as Baylor won it. There was not a mental collapse, a long stretch of O ineffectiveness, etc… It turned on a bounce here and a call there. We were very scrappy.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by 















