clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Study Hall: Mississippi State 58, Mizzou 56

Well, that’s a shame.

study hall 2020

There was a fleeting moment when Jarron Coleman hit a 3 with 3:41 to play that I thought they might actually do it. The defense was causing MSU all kinds of issues in the half court, and Mizzou had been controlling things enough offensively in the half it felt like things were going to work out.

Until they didn’t.

Mizzou grabbed two offensive rebounds on a possession with under a minute to play but couldn’t convert. Even on the deciding possession, Coleman avoided an attempted charge (a good non-call from the officials as it was clearly a flop) and stood alone at the 3-point line with 15 seconds left, and he bricked his shot. Shakeel Moore grabbed the long rebound and raced to the other end and converted the layup.

After missing the free throw, Mizzou got the rebound with 10.5, raced up the floor and Coleman kicked the ball to Javon Pickett. Who... shot a 3.

It’s just been that kind of season.

Team Stats

study hall 2022 mississippi state
  • The big difference was pretty easy to pick out: Mizzou lost the rebounding battle, won the TOR and EFG%, and got decimated in the Free Throw battle. The Bulldogs shot 24 free throws to the Tigers 9, and the second half difference was 16 to 3. State is not a good FT shooting team, but their best FT shooter (Iverson Molinar) got to the line 10 times and made 8. His 8 made FTs was more than Mizzou’s made 7 FTs.
  • Overall, Mizzou was more efficient shooting the ball: the 3FG% was obviously not great, but they were better from 2FG% by 10 percent, and did make 2 more 3FG than State did. Mizzou was 17/32 from 2, while State was 16/37. They made 2 more 3FGs. But they simply sent MSU to the line way too much.

For these two teams and their design, State isn’t a great matchup against Missouri because they do all the things Mizzou does only they’re bigger and a little better. They’re bigger inside, so they rebound better. They’re longer on the wing, so they get more deflections. In all, the roster is just better. Ben Howland built a roster that looks a lot like a Cuonzo Martin roster when he was at Tennessee.

Player Stats

Your Trifecta: Jarron Coleman, Javon Pickett, Kobe Brown

study hall 2022 mississippi state

On the season: Kobe Brown 40, Ronnie DeGray III 28, Jarron Coleman 24, Amari Davis 22, Javon Pickett 20, Trevon Brazile 12, DaJuan Gordon 12, Sean Durugordon 2, Yaya Keita 1, Jordan Wilmore 1

This was a game of almosts. Javon Pickett was terrific really, but he was also 0-6 from 3. And several of those looks were good ones. Before this game Pickett had never had a game with that many attempts and no makes. The closest was earlier this year when he was 0-4 against Eastern Illinois. All Pickett needed was one make at some point and it changes the entire trajectory of the game. He’s just not the guy who usually tries that many outside jumpers, especially when it’s not falling. Pickett has 9 games with 6 or more 3FG attempts and seven of those happened his freshman year. The other two were this year with one being last night.

During the broadcast, Jon Sundvold mentioned how Boogie is the kind of player Mizzou needs because he’s able to change pace and he passes the ball well. Coleman was that player last night. Part of the Tigers struggles all year is that Coleman has been too hot and cold. Mizzou just needed him to make one more 3 pointer though...

study hall 2022 mississippi state

Often commentators like to make these points about how “when Pickett and Brown do x and x Mizzou wins!” But you don’t often count on DaJuan Gordon going 13 minutes, missing all his shots, having 3 turnovers, and having a 0% floor rate. Mizzou can withstand Kaleb Brown having a 0% floor rate, but Gordon is too important, and he’s also a guy who’s been a key shooter in the resurgence. Gordon basically taking a mulligan was a less than fortunate turn. As was Ronnie DeGray, who was the guy who held things together in Starkville, but he struggled with the Bulldogs giving him a renewed focus.

Mizzou got what they needed from Coleman, from Pickett and from Brown. Trevon Brazile had a solid night and even had a big 3. But getting nothing from Gordon and Kaleb Brown, and a rough night from DeGray was the difference.

We’re beginning to enter the “i know how this is likely to turn out” stage of the season. For a while Missouri was able to cobble together some respectable results but ultimately you need to win more. Mizzou is now 4-10 in conference play, with four single possession game losses. The fan dissatisfaction is palpable, if not overwhelming.

I don’t know if Mizzou is going to look to fire their head coach at the end of the season, but I believe if they want to they would be able to. Money seems to be the biggest obstacle but I’ve been told “the money is there” if they need it.

Criticism of Martin and his program are warranted, after all he’s in charge of it all. This team is bad, and their margins are so thin that it requires them playing nearly perfectly in order to win. That’s not a good place to be in. That’s the kind of place that can, and often does, get you fired. Whether or not you trust him to rebuild the roster enough to fix their obviously holes is a legitimate question.

There’s another game tomorrow. And one more Saturday. Then we’re in the last week of the regular season. Regardless of what happens the rest of the way it does feel like the writing may be on the wall. I don’t know if Cuonzo is cooked or not, but the program needs a change.

True Shooting Percentage (TS%): Quite simply, this calculates a player’s shooting percentage while taking into account 2FG%, 3FG%, and FT%. The formula is Total Points / 2 * (FGA + (0.475+FTA)). The 0.475 is a Free Throw modifier. KenPomeroy and other College Basketball sites typically use 0.475, while the NBA typically uses 0.44. That’s basically what TS% is. A measure of scoring efficiency based on the number of points scored over the number of possessions in which they attempted to score, more here.

Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%): This is similar to TS%, but takes 3-point shooting more into account. The formula is FGM + (0.5 * 3PM) / FGA

So think of TS% as scoring efficiency, and eFG% as shooting efficiency, more here.

Expected Offensive Rebounds: Measured based upon the average rebounds a college basketball team gets on both the defensive and offensive end. This takes the overall number of missed shots (or shots available to be rebounded) and divides them by the number of offensive rebounds and compares them with the statistical average.

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.

Offensive Rating (ORtg): Similar to Adjusted game score, but this looks at how many points per possession a player would score if they were averaged over 100 possessions.

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 a Player 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.