clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Study Hall: Florida 66, Mizzou 65

It comes down to losing a game you easily should have won.

study hall 2020

Well that was one of the more frustrating games to watch play out over the last few years.

There is no reason why Missouri should have lost that game. They were better prepared, and executed the game plan far better. But... Florida made a LOT of free throws. If you score 12 points from the floor in any half of basketball, that’s typically considered a bad half.

Let’s take this into account: at the under 8 timeout, Missouri had a 9 point lead. They were seemingly in control of the game. Then, the rest of the way the Gators scored THREE field goals. And somehow erased that 9 point lead and won the game. Despite scoring just 6 points from the field. Thanks to the free throw line.

The Gators scored 17 points at the free throw line in less than 8 minutes of game action. Meanwhile Missouri scored 5 points from the FT line, and 10 points from the floor.

You know how many free throws Florida missed in the last 10 minutes? Zero.

You know how many free throws Missouri missed in the last 10 minutes? Four.

Obviously there was a lot more that went into this game and how it played out so let’s get into it.

Team Stats

study hall 2022 florida
  • We’ll start with the free throw theme. the FTA/FGA was the one place where the Gators had a real advantage: Florida’s 60% free throw rate was the highest against the Tigers this season. They shot 35% from 2FG, and a healthy 43.5% from 3FG. Considering the Gators made six of their first eight 3s, finishing 4 of 15 certainly evened things out a bit. But it just didn’t matter because the Gators had a free throw parade. Florida was 3/5 in the first half and 19/21 in the second half. If they shot the same percentage in the second half as they did the first, Mizzou wins by about 7 points.
  • Points per possession were close, points per shot: that’s where Florida’s turnover rate, coupled with getting to the free throw line, just gave them a huge advantage. But extracting free throw attempts from the box, UF’s PPP was just 0.70. Their points per shot would’ve just been 1.02.
  • Missouri won most of the statistical categories: so really there’s no reason they should have lost this game. BCI was heavily in Missouri’s favor. They eked out a rebounding win, and didn’t turn the ball over in the second half. And it just wasn’t enough. Because they couldn’t stop fouling.

Player Stats

Your Trifecta: Ronnie DeGray III, Jarron Coleman, DaJuan Gordon

study hall 2022 florida

On the season: Kobe Brown 29, Jarron Coleman 21, Amari Davis 20, Ronnie DeGray III 18, Javon Pickett 15, DaJuan Gordon 11, Trevon Brazile 8, Sean Durugordon 2, Yaya Keita 1, Jordan Wilmore 1

Ronnie DeGray is like the guy who finds gold every few games and just does everything right. Missouri is better for it, but would do better if they could align their other stars to play better when he hits that mode. It would also be nice if he could find that mode more often. But more importantly, I think this speaks to the deficiencies of the roster. Sure, having Javon Pickett out hurts, but DeGray has to be perfect unless a lot of other things are clicking. And it’s rare that a lot of other things are clicking at the same time.

Once again Kobe Brown, Missouri’s best player, was missing. He was good when he had the ball. He made plays, he converted with his chances, but in 34 minutes he took six shots and had just a 14% usage rate That’s not enough.

study hall 2022 florida

Overall, this team did everything they should have done short of fouling just way too much. If you went back and watched, there might’ve been a questionable call, or two... but in large part it was Missouri just... fouling.

They scored with efficiency, they defended well. They really got all they needed with the lone exception of the free throws. Florida hit enough 3s in the first half to keep the game competitive, and made enough FTs in the second half to stay close despite the Tigers playing better. It’s a little disheartening. Up next is a road trip to Texas A&M.

I’ll have some additional thoughts on the game later.

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.