clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Study Hall: Mizzou 78, Loyola MD 70

If anyone can make sense of this team at this point in the season, well just let me know... and also the coaching staff.

study hall 2022

Allow me to use the imagery below to accentuate how I feel about Missouri right now:

why can’t you be normal screams

So far this season has been a little up and down. Mizzou, when things are going well, look fantastic. But that seems to occur for around 12 minutes a game.

Loyola found themselves down 31-9 with a little over 7 minutes to play in the first half. They then went on a 17-0 run... Loyola scored 17 straight points against Missouri. South Carolina State outscored the Tigers 29-13 to open the game on Wednesday. Mizzou then answered with a 48-10 run. Jackson State went on multiple runs to come back and beat the Tigers. Minnesota was up 20 on Mizzou before a 31-9 run to close the game won it. Memphis outscored Mizzou by 22 in the second half, while the Tigers led by 14 in the first half.

Just... be normal!

But so far they’re very much now and have tumbled to 91st in KenPom. Defensively they can be menaces or a sieve. Offensively they can pour it on or go stagnant for really long stretches. Even against bad teams. It's one thing to struggle in the half court against Memphis, it’s another against Loyola.

Team Stats

study hall 2024 loyola

In some ways this was a pretty typical Mizzou game. They forced a high rate of turnovers, they didn’t shoot horribly. they shot more free throws...

  • But look at the 2FG%: Mizzou has yielded 50% or higher from 2FG% in each of the last three games. The defensive pressure is there at the front but not there on the back end. Some of that was supposed to be fixed by more size, but Vanover again played less than 10 minutes. Jordan Butler was +9 in 8 minutes, Trent Pierce was +7 in 5 minutes. Vanover was on the floor for 7 minutes and was +4. Clearly the size and length bothered Loyola when they were shooting.
  • Mizzou had 8 more possessions to take a crack at a shot when you account for turnovers, and basically got one point for each of those and there’s the difference.

These are being kept short for a reason. I think it’s clear that Dennis Gates is searching for answers from his locker room and he doesn’t have any yet. This is the first time he seemed to lean hard and heavy on a more experienced lineup. Sean East, Noah Carter, Nick Honor, and Caleb Grill all played 27 minutes or more. Aidan Shaw capped at 14, then Anthony Robinson played 22. No one else saw more than 10 minutes. And I’m not sure it worked! It got the result, a win, but it was a challenge over a sub-300 kenpom team.

Player Stats

Your Trifecta: Noah Carter, Anthony Robinson II, Sean East II

2024 study hall loyola

On the season: Sean East 14, Noah Carter 10, Nick Honor 7, Anthony Robinson II 3, Caleb Grill 3, Tamar Bates 3, Jesus Carralero Martin 1, Aidan Shaw 1

Probably Noah Carter’s best game. If anything they could have used more of attacking Carter around the rim.

I think it’s safe to say that Anthony Robinson is the breakout player of the year so far. Coming in we expected him to play a reserve role behind the two experienced point guards, but Gates has insisted on playing Honor and East together more this year which has opened up more minutes at the combo guard when one subs off. Robinson has looked the most consistently steady of really most of the new additions. I’m surprised by it, but in a good way.

2024 study hall loyola

I don’t like using this space to list all the things Missouri needs to happen. I do believe Caleb Grill had perhaps his most consistent game, the back end defensive rotations were a bit loose but he didn’t force anything offensive and took a lot of good shots. He’s still not making enough of them, but if he’d have connected on one more of his 5 misses I think people would feel better.

I’m honestly not sure where to go from here. I still think Mizzou can be good. I think the elements are there, but they’re just a little rudderless at the moment. This is a combination of roster construction along with the players in the locker room. I’m not calling anything a bad fit just yet; I’m just saying they haven’t figured out the fit. Maybe they won’t.

But things are about to get heavy in a hurry. Missouri has just one more “expected” win before hitting Central Arkansas in late December. I don’t think you hit panic and I still think Dennis Gates has been great. It’s just worth pointing out that last season’s surge was abnormal and it’s generally very hard to put together a new roster and win big right away.


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.

%Min: This is easy, it’s the percentage of minutes a player played which were available to them. That would be 40 minutes, or 45 if the game goes to overtime.

Usage%: This “estimates the % of team possessions a player consumes while on the floor” (via sports-reference.com/cbb). 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.

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. This combined with Usage Rate gives you a sense of impact on the floor.

IndPoss: This is approximates how many possessions an individual is responsible for within the teams calculated possessions.

ShotRate%: This is the percentage of teams shots a player takes while on the floor.

AstRate%: Attempts to estimate the number of assists a player has on teammates made field goals when he is on the floor. The formula is basically AST / (((MinutesPlayed / (Team MP / 5)) * Team FGM) - FGM).

TORate%: Attempts to estimate the number of turnovers a player commits in their individual possessions. The formula is simple: TO / IndPoss

Floor%: Via sports-reference.com/cbb: 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.

In attempting to update Study Hall, I’m moving away from Touches/Possession and moving into the Rates a little more. This is a little experimental so if there’s something you’d like to see let me know and I’ll see if there’s an easy visual way to present it.