Study Hall: Vanderbilt 76, Missouri 53

Your Trifecta: Shamburger-Teki-Post.

Your Season Trifecta: Your Season Trifecta: J3 35 points, Shamburger 34, Clark 24, Teki 18, Post 12, Gant 10, Allen nine, Wright eight, Isabell seven, Rosburg five. By class: sophomores 59, freshmen 52, seniors 46, juniors five.

Honestly, Mizzou was probably due a game like this, a "Oh no, here we go again" special where the other team comes out smoking hot, and Mizzou's down seven points before it can even get the pieces of its gameplan established. Mizzou started out 1-for-7 from the floor, Vandy started out 4-for-5, and that was pretty much that. When you've lost this many games in a row, with this young a team, one would assume games like this are inevitable. You're just trying to minimize the total. The total for Mizzou is now two -- this game and the Ole Miss game. (The game in Lexington, too, I guess, but ... that was Kentucky. That doesn't count.)

I was trying to figure out why so many people seemed particularly upset about this game, and while the scoring margin had something to do with it, I came to realize that I'm very dependent on Ken Pomeroy's stats, to the point where I don't really pay attention to conference standings until conference tournaments are on deck. I didn't realize Vanderbilt was in 13th place in the SEC -- I only thought of the 'Dores as a top-60 team, one that was probably going to beat Mizzou relatively comfortably. From an "oh please, we just want one more win" perspective, this one was pretty high on people's hope lists. In actuality, it's probably Auburn or bust -- Pomeroy still gives Mizzou a 51% chance of beating Auburn at home on March 3 on Senior Day. Here's to hoping for that one, huh?

Vanderbilt 76, Missouri 53

• Mizzou has been at least semi-competitive in most of its losses because usually either the offense or the defense shows up. The problem has been that Mizzou can't seem to make jumpers and play defense, or control the ball well and rebound, at the same time. Usually it's one or the other and never both. Again, probably because the terrible start sent them into a spiral, Mizzou was good at approximately nothing yesterday. Vandy didn't even try to pressure the ball, which (with help from a nice game from Keith Shamburger) led to solid ball-handling numbers. But Mizzou shot 2-pointers and 3-pointers worse than vandy, had half the assists, and by far most damning, got wrecked on the boards.
  
  
• Vanderbilt is nowhere close to the best rebounding team Mizzou has faced this year. But I'm pretty sure this was the first game with a minus-10 rebounding margin in terms of expected rebounds. Losing the rebounding battle to Kentucky or South Carolina is to be expected. Losing it badly to Vandy is unacceptable. That's the clearest possible example of Mizzou being a Dead Team Walking after that initial blitz. The Tigers were able to close to within six points right before halftime, which showed at least some resilience. But the tank was empty after that. From 35-29, Vandy went on a 13-4 run, then went on a 16-4 run.
  
  
• Again, Vandy is a pretty good team. The 'Dores are so low in the standings because of a seven-game losing streak early in conference play, one that featured three losses that were either by one possession or in overtime. They've lost twice more since that streak ended -- by three points to Tennessee and by three points to Florida. They're 5-9 but about as close to 9-5 as 4-10. And they took out some frustrations yesterday, out-shooting, out-playing, and (damningly) out-working Mizzou.

Mizzou Player Stats

(Definitions at the bottom of the post.)

• I want to simultaneously credit and crush Namon Wright and Tramaine Isabell for taking some silly shots in the first half. Rushed, low-percentage shots are pretty much the worst thing you can take when dealing with a hot opponent and a growing lead, and the fact that they were both yanked by Kim Anderson tells you all you need to know. But at the same time, I can't necessarily blame them for trying to make something happen.
  
  
• This might be the most frustrating loss of the season, simply because it can't be explained by "Player A and Player B had terrible games." Typically in the worse losses this year, one player tries to do too much and ends up with like a minus-10.0 Adj. GS score. Isabell and Deuce Bello did end up in the negatives, but barely. This was a collectively awful performance, with three players doing reasonably well and seven just kind of existing. And, yes, getting destroyed on the glass.
  
  
• Mizzou made 21 shots from the field, and Keith Shamburger was either directly (4-for-8 from the field) or indirectly (eight assists) tied to 12 of them. You just have to feel so, so badly for him. This is just not what he signed up for. He deserves to win on Senior Day, even if nobody else in particular does.

Summary

Like I said up top, a performance like this was probably due. But that doesn't make it particularly fun to watch. Five games to go.

---

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.