Ok, so I used yesterday’s Pourover to talk more about the bigger picture for the season, so I’m going to do the best I can to not repeat myself and focus as much as possible on this game and what went down.
If you felt like the game was a disjointed struggle, well I think you should watch more Wisconsin basketball. The state of play was what South Carolina wanted. A slower pace, a fair amount of shots from the mid range. Sure I don’t think South Carolina wanted to turn the ball over16 times, or shoot 29.2% from deep, but they sure as hell were able to make their game their own in Mizzou Arena.
Both teams were looking for a small run which would have allowed them to seize control. The best run of the day was a 6-0 run which Mizzou did twice in the first half, but neither was a take control run. It wasn’t until overtime when South Carolina started out putting together five straight points did any control in the game feel like it was in the hands of one team or the other. Once South Carolina got to 5 points up, it felt like they had control. Even when Noah Carter tied the game with a three. So when Jacobi Wright hit a guarded fade away three that would win the game it really felt like the perfect encompassment of the last 3-4 weeks.
- It’s definitely frustrating to have 9 more possessions with the turnover differential: and to still come up short at home. It hasn’t been normal for a Dennis Gates coached team at Missouri to win the turnover battle like this and not be able to take a big enough lead to win.
- I mean the BCI was 3.43 to 0.88: which is a number we’re accustomed to seeing with this coach and his program but to LOSE with that difference should be telling about what Gates wants his team to be, and what this team is.
- A big part of what this team is points to the offense: The defense has been better but not enough to make up for the inability to consistently make shots, and in particular three point jump shots. So far this season Mizzou has hit 50% or better once, 40% or better twice all season. They’ve lived in the 20% to 30% range. It’s one of those things where they’re a hot shooting night away from a win, the problem is they haven’t had a hot shooting night since the loss to Seton Hall.
- Still can’t rebound though.
Your Trifecta: Noah Carter, Jesus Carralero Martin, Tamar Bates
On the season: Sean East II 34, Noah Carter 17, Tamar Bates 14, Nick Honor 10, Caleb Grill 6, Aidan Shaw 3, Connor Vanover 3, Trent Pierce 3, Anthony Robinson II 3, Jesus Carralero-Martin 2
No Sean East in the trifecta, he had a tough shooting night but it was the 5 turnovers when the rest of the team had just 2 combined. The way things have gone for Missouri they can’t withstand an off night from to many of their most senior three. It’s been since the Seton Hall game when Nick Honor made the trifecta. That game Noah Carter was 1-12. Against Georgia, Carter and Sean East were there but Honor struggled again. The consistent theme here has been Honor’s struggles offensively, and I still trace it back to him being asked to do more than he’s capable of.
Being a coach is as much about managing personalities as it is Xs and Os. Honor was especially good at being the player he was last year. Low usage, space the floor, knock down threes. His overall numbers aren’t far off from his career numbers, but he’s already taken 61 2FGA whereas last year for the entire season he took 78. They’ve played 19 fewer games so far this season than last year. His usage crept up closer to where he was at Clemson and in turn his offensive rating is in line with what he was when he was there. I don’t think Honor is playing poorly, he just is what he is.
The emergence as a secondary threat of Tamar Bates has been a very positive development. Since the Seton Hall game Bates is averaging 17 points a game while shooting over 50% from three and over 60% from two. He may not ever be the primary option you need this season, but developing as a pretty good second and third option on offense is a very good development for when Mizzou needs to dip into the transfer portal this spring. Because not needing to fix everything, you just need to fix one or two things.
The version of the Tigers we got against South Carolina was of the “just not good enough” variety, but they weren’t bad either. They needed to rebound a little better, shoot a little better, but overall they played pretty well.
That’s the frustrating part here. Even when they’re doing the right things, they’re not making the shots needed.
Maybe it’s a cursed year. Regardless, playing a 67 possession game and having 37 of those taken up by two guys, and only one of those guys shot with efficiency... and even he was 2-10 from 3FG... well that’s a tough night.
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.