:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/43753958/ShamburgerUMSL.0.0.png)
Your Trifecta: Shamburger, Gill-Caesar, J3. For the last exhibition, it was Clark-Rosburg-Wright. You know how, the last couple of seasons, the Trifecta got boring because we pretty much knew who the top performers were going to be? I'm pretty sure we're entering another age of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Trifectas.
Kim Anderson said after the game that he liked that his team struggled and had to work from behind. If this team had championship expectations, then there would be no positives whatsoever to draw from falling behind, 25-14, against UMSL. For a young, new, who-the-hell-knows-what-will-happen team, however, I'm inclined to agree with him. The Tigers were forced to figure out how to play with the proverbial blood in the mouth. They responded well.
Round 1: 10-9 UMSL
Round 2: 10-9 UMSL
Round 3: 10-10
Round 4: 10-8 MU
Round 5: 10-9 MU
Round 6: 10-10
Round 7: 10-9 MU
Round 8: TKO
Missouri 77, UMSL 54
| Mizzou |
UMSL | |
| Pace (No. of Possessions) | 64.8 | |
| Points Per Possession (PPP) | 1.19 | 0.83 |
| Points Per Shot (PPS) | 1.18 | 1.10 |
| 2-PT FG% | 50.0% | 41.7% |
| 3-PT FG% | 32.0% | 28.0% |
| FT% | 76.5% | 72.2% |
| True Shooting % | 53.1% | 47.4% |
| Mizzou | UMSL | |
| Assists | 15 | 9 |
| Steals | 14 | 6 |
| Turnovers | 9 | 19 |
|
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO |
3.22 | 0.79 |
| Mizzou | UMSL | |
| Expected Offensive Rebounds | 13.6 | 11.8 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 16 | 10 |
| Difference | +2.4 | -1.8 |
- Mizzou broke the Expected Rebounds scale last week against William Jewell but had to work really hard against UMSL. And if Johnathan Williams III hadn't played, UMSL may have won this battle.
- Ball control was encouraging. The shots weren't falling for a while, but after committing 15 turnovers against William Jewell, Mizzou cut that number to 9 and while raising the assists number to 15 and still generating tons of steals.
- Shooting was ... still subpar. But if you look at the game as whole and not just the brutal first 10 minutes, they were actually an upgrade from William Jewell. Mizzou shot 50% / 32% / 77% in this game after going for just 46% / 32% / 67%. And J3 was clearly rusty in this regard, so that could have gone a little higher.
Mizzou Player Stats
(Definitions at the bottom of the post.)
| Player |
AdjGS | GmSc/Min | Line |
| Keith Shamburger | 19.4 | 0.63 | 31 Min, 13 Pts (5-8 FG, 3-6 3PT), 6 Reb, 6 Ast, 3 Stl, 1 Blk, 1 PF |
| Montaque Gill-Caesar | 16.8 | 0.73 | 23 Min, 19 Pts (7-11 FG, 1-4 3PT, 4-4 FT), 3 Reb (2 Off), 1 Ast, 1 Stl, 1 Blk, 2 TO |
| Johnathan Williams III | 13.1 | 0.45 | 29 Min, 13 Pts (2-10 FG, 1-3 3PT, 8-10 FT), 12 Reb (4 Off), 2 Ast, 1 Stl, 2 Blk, 2 TO, 1 PF |
| Jakeenan Gant | 9.8 | 0.89 | 11 Min, 6 Pts (3-4 FG), 5 Reb (2 Off), 2 Stl, 1 Blk |
| Tramaine Isabell | 5.8 | 0.39 | 15 Min, 7 Pts (3-12 FG, 1-5 3PT), 1 Reb (1 Off), 2 Ast, 3 Stl, 1 Blk |
| Deuce Bello | 4.7 | 0.33 | 14 Min, 7 Pts (3-5 FG, 1-3 3PT, 0-1 FT), 1 Reb, 1 Stl, 1 Blk, 1 TO, 2 PF |
| Wes Clark | 4.3 | 0.15 | 28 Min, 8 Pts (3-9 FG, 1-3 3PT, 1-2 FT), 4 Ast, 3 PF |
| Ryan Rosburg | 3.6 | 0.24 | 15 Min, 4 Pts (2-4 FG), 2 Reb (2 Off), 1 Stl, 1 Blk, 4 PF |
| Keanau Post | -1.2 | -0.09 | 14 Min, 0 Pts (0-1 FG), 1 Reb, 1 Stl, 1 TO, 2 PF |
| Namon Wright | -1.6 | -0.17 | 9 Min, 0 Pts (0-1 FG, 0-1 3PT), 2 Reb, 1 TO, 1 PF |
| D'Angelo Allen | -1.6 | -0.14 | 11 Min, 0 Pts, 1 Reb, 1 Stl, 2 TO, 2 PF |
| Player | Usage% | Floor% | Touches/ Poss. |
%Pass | %Shoot | %Fouled | %T/O |
| Shamburger | 13% | 69% | 4.3 | 82% | 18% | 0% | 0% |
| MGC | 32% | 51% | 3.1 | 26% | 48% | 17% | 9% |
| J3 | 28% | 31% | 3.6 | 35% | 30% | 30% | 6% |
| Gant | 18% | 71% | 1.1 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Isabell | 39% | 27% | 4.9 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 0% |
| Bello | 23% | 41% | 1.5 | 0% | 71% | 14% | 14% |
| Clark | 17% | 40% | 3.8 | 68% | 26% | 6% | 0% |
| Rosburg | 13% | 44% | 0.8 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Post | 7% | 0% | 0.4 | 0% | 50% | 0% | 50% |
| Wright | 11% | 0% | 0.7 | 0% | 50% | 0% | 50% |
| Allen | 9% | 0% | 0.6 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
- Hello, Keith Shamburger? A nearly perfect point guard game from him, with efficient shooting (13 points in 8 FG attempts), 6 assists, 3 steals, and no TOs. Do that against real teams, and you end up all-conference.
- MGC and J3 filled every line of the box score.
- Really nice game from Gill-Caesar. With Mizzou dying for offense, the Tigers leaned on him, and he looked pretty natural carrying the load.
- Not including TEAM rebounds (deadballs and whatnot), J3 had four of Mizzou's 11 offensive rebounds and eight of the Tigers' 23 defensive rebounds. That's good work. And it kind of saved Mizzou to an extent considering Rosburg and Post managed to combine for six fouls and four points in 29 minutes.
- That was pretty much exactly what I expect from Bello (dunks, fouls, fouls drawn, and steals) and Allen (no shots, rebounds, steals, fouls) this year.
- I think I'm really, really going to like junior Tramaine Isabell in the 2016-17 season. You can see the components of an absolutely filthy college point guard (though the shooting might still come and go for a while).
Summary
Deal with adversity, challenge yourself, and still win by 23? I'll take that. Again, this is a team for which we should have absolutely zero expectations, good or bad, and my goal is just to watch them build a foundation from scratch. So far, so good in that regard.
(Sam Snelling will have more analysis later in the day.)
---
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 Basketball-Reference.com: 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.