clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Missouri 72, William Jewell 31: Study Hall

New, 5 comments

Only because I like you so much, I wanted to go ahead and hammer one of these out today.

Jeremy Brevard-USA TODAY Sports

Your Trifecta: Clark-Rosburg-Wright.

Like Sam has already said today, it's hard to get too excited about, or glean much from, an exhibition like this. So I'll just quickly roll through these stats and look for good things and red flags.

Missouri 72, William Jewell 31

Pace (No. of Possessions) 67.5
Points Per Possession (PPP) 1.07 0.46
Points Per Shot (PPS) 1.24 0.60
2-PT FG% 46.2% 16.1%
3-PT FG% 31.6% 19.0%
FT% 66.7% 42.9%
True Shooting % 51.5% 25.3%
Mizzou WJ
Assists 10 6
Steals 12 5
Turnovers 15 16
Ball Control Index (BCI)
(Assists + Steals) / TO
1.47 0.69
Mizzou WJ
Expected Offensive Rebounds 13.5 17.2
Offensive Rebounds 17 10
Difference +3.5 -7.2
  • Good Thing: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Missouri will never lose while allowing 0.46 points per possession.
  • Red Flag: You'd like to see the 2PT% over 50% and the 3PT% over about 33-34% in a game like this. It's the first one, and guys might still be kicking the rust off, but again, these are meant to be red flags not "PANIC ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW" items.
  • Red Flag: 10 assists to 15 turnovers. Again, it's early, there's been no time to develop any sort of rhythm, etc. Plus, when you have almost as many steals (12) as turnovers, that's a very exciting thing. Still ... you'd like to see it higher than that.
  • Good Thing: William Jewell's 0.69 BCI. That 12 of WJ's 16 turnovers were steals is a pretty exciting thing. The Cardinals weren't committing a lot of unforced errors -- Mizzou was forcing them.
  • GOOD, GOOD THING: Holy smokes, those rebounding numbers. William Jewell missed a ton of shots, so of course the Tigers were going to win the rebounding battle (because even good offensive rebounding teams still don't grab as many offensive boards as the opponents grab defensive boards). But wow. That's both a sign of good hustle and good use of size advantages. Obviously the latter won't be present at all times, but the former can be. And there was some hustle out there.

Mizzou Player Stats

(Definitions at the bottom of the post.)

AdjGS GmSc/Min Line
Wes Clark 14.7 0.54 27 Min, 14 Pts (5-12 FG, 2-4 3PT, 2-2 FT), 7 Reb (2 Off), 1 Ast, 3 Stl, 2 TO, 1 PF
Ryan Rosburg 11.6 0.50 23 Min, 13 Pts (5-10 FG, 3-5 FT), 8 Reb (2 Off), 1 Blk, 1 TO, 2 PF
Namon Wright 9.9 0.62 16 Min, 7 Pts (3-5 FG, 0-2 3PT, 1-2 FT), 5 Reb (1 Off), 1 Ast, 2 Stl, 1 Blk, 4 PF
Deuce Bello 9.6 0.53 18 Min, 5 Pts (1-2 FG, 0-1 3PT, 3-6 FT), 6 Reb (2 Off), 1 Ast, 3 Stl, 1 TO, 1 PF
Tramaine Isabell 8.0 0.44 18 Min, 10 Pts (3-7 FG, 2-4 3PT, 2-2 FT), 3 Reb, 2 Ast, 1 Stl, 2 TO, 3 PF
Keith Shamburger 7.6 0.33 23 Min, 3 Pts (1-4 FG, 1-3 3PT, 0-0 FT), 5 Reb (1 Off), 4 Ast, 2 Stl, 3 PF
Montaque Gill-Caesar 5.0 0.25 20 Min, 7 Pts (1-5 FG, 1-2 3PT, 4-4 FT), 5 Reb (2 Off), 1 TO, 3 PF
Hayden Barnard 2.1 0.70 3 Min, 2 Pts (1-1 FG)
Jakeenan Gant 1.1 0.05 21 Min, 6 Pts (2-8 FG, 0-3 3PT, 2-2 FT), 6 Reb (1 Off), 1 Stl, 1 Blk, 3 TO, 3 PF
Keanau Post 0.1 0.01 13 Min, 5 Pts (2-3 FG, 1-2 FT), 3 Reb (2 Off), 1 Blk, 4 TO, 4 PF
D'Angelo Allen -0.1 -0.01 18 Min, 0 Pts (0-1 FG, 0-2 FT), 7 Reb (2 Off), 1 Ast, 1 TO, 3 PF
Player Usage% Floor% Touches/
%Pass %Shoot %Fouled %T/O
Wes Clark 26% 37% 2.3 28% 56% 7% 9%
Ryan Rosburg 27% 42% 1.9 0% 68% 25% 7%
Namon Wright 17% 55% 2.3 48% 40% 12% 0%
Deuce Bello 15% 38% 2.2 44% 15% 33% 8%
Tramaine Isabell 26% 39% 3.7 53% 31% 7% 9%
Keith Shamburger 8% 45% 3.5 85% 15% 0% 0%
Montaque Gill-Caesar 18% 30% 1.3 0% 56% 33% 11%
Hayden Barnard 16% 100% 1.0 0% 100% 0% 0%
Jakeenan Gant 27% 22% 1.8 0% 64% 12% 24%
Keanau Post 29% 27% 1.9 0% 35% 17% 47%
D'Angelo Allen 8% 12% 1.5 63% 11% 16% 11%
  • Good Thing: Mizzou might have some ball-handlers. Wes Clark was more shooting guard than point guard, but six Tigers had a %Pass of higher than 40%. The other five combined for 0%, of course, but six is more than enough. And while the Tigers had some turnover issues, most of them came from guys who aren't going to be handling the ball very much. Clark, Isabell, Shamburger, Wright, and Bello had nine assists to five turnovers. You want more than 10 assists in a game, obviously, but there's some promise there.
  • Good Thing: Namon Wright, just filling in each line of the box score...
  • Red Flag: Keanau Post, just hacking away. He had a nice baby hook and managed five points and three rebounds in 13 minutes ... and his four fouls in 13 minutes prevented him from doing any more than that. I was hoping to get 15 minutes per game from Post this year, but ... red flag.
  • Good Thing: D'Angelo Allen, just hustling here and hustling there. He is by all accounts raw offensively, and he took only one shot in 18 minutes. But he had seven boards and an assist in that time. I like the potential there ... even if he might be too much of an offensive liability to play major minutes.
  • Good Thing: Wes Clark, averaging 1.2 points per field goal attempt, making both of his free throws, and nabbing three steals with only one foul.
  • Red Flag: Wes Clark, with 21 percent of Mizzou's field goal attempts. That's a bit scary.
  • Good Thing: Two freshmen (Wright and Isabell) averaging better than 0.4 AdjGS/minute. For the most part, I don't think we've been expecting much from Isabell, but he did well.
  • Red Flag: Two freshmen (Gill-Caesar and Gant) averaging 0.25 AdjGS/minute or worse. The two more naturally gifted athletes of the freshmen class were unable to use that to their advantage too much.


There were more Good Things than Red Flags. That's all you can really ask for in this type of game, especially without what might be your best player (Johnathan Williams III).

On to the next one...


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.

Usage%: This "estimates the % of team possessions a player consumes while on the floor" (via). The usage of those possessions is determined via a formula using field goal and free throw attempts, offensive rebounds, assists and turnovers. The higher the number, the more prevalent a player is (good or bad) in a team's offensive outcome.

Floor%: Via Floor % answers the question, "when Player X uses a possession, what is the probability that his team scores at least 1 point?". The higher the Floor%, the more frequently the team probably scores when the given player is involved.

Touches/Possession: Using field goal attempts, free throw attempts, assists and turnovers, Touches attempt to estimate "the number of times a player touched the ball in an attacking position on the floor." Take the estimated touches and divide it by the estimated number of possessions for which a player was on the court, and you get a rough idea of how many times a player touched the ball in a given possession. For point guards, you'll see the number in the 3-4 range. For shooting guards and wings, 2-3. For an offensively limited center, 1.30. You get the idea.

Anyway, using the Touches figure, we can estimate the percentage of time a player "in an attacking position" passes, shoots, turns the ball over, or gets fouled.