clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Study Hall: Vanderbilt 68, Mizzou 61

How many rock bottoms are there?

study hall 2022

If you want a more broad look at the program, check out my Pourover from yesterday. I’m going to try to keep this as much about what happened in Nashville as possible, with some other recent trends around the team. But it’s certainly difficult to get excited to talk about this team with the way things have gone.

For the 7th time since joining the SEC, Mizzou seemed destined for the Wednesday play-in game of the SEC Tournament. It sucks. There’s no getting around that. Going into this week the season was a disappointment, but with Arkansas and Vanderbilt on the schedule notching a win or two would at least cleanse the palate somewhat. Instead the Tigers cratered completely, getting blown out by the Hogs and letting a very winnable game in Nashville slip through their fingers.

The frustration goes deeper since they started the game out well with a lead of 20-9. But after scoring 20 points in about six and a half minutes, it would take Mizzou more than 22 minutes to score their next 20. And by that point they were down four points.

That’s also the wild part. Despite their offense going into the tank, Vanderbilt is so bad they weren’t really able to fully seize upon Mizzou’s failures. But the Tigers also never were able to string anything together to retake the lead either. They cut the lead to one with a few minutes to play, but couldn’t get a stop on the next possession, turned it over on the next one, and that was that.

Team Stats

2024 study hall vanderbilt
  • Vanderbilt isn’t good at many things: they’re the worst three point shooting team in the SEC, and that held up. Vandy sank three in a row which helped cut the early Mizzou lead down to just five points. But then they only made two the rest of the way. But four of those threes were drained by freshman Isaiah West, a guy who had only played in two conference games and had made four three pointers prior to his supplementing the Vandy offense. Just incredible timing for the freshman, and such is the life of the Missouri Tigers. Sunk by a guy who wasn’t even on the scouting report.
  • I don’t like using words like ‘embarrassing’ because I have nothing to be embarrassed about: but if I were Missouri, I’d be feeling some embarrassment for how you ended up giving Vandy a 43% offensive rebound rate. It was their best offensive rebounding performance on the season, even better than USC Upstate and UNC Greensboro. That’s a rough night.
  • Then, shooting just 45% from 2FG against the 150th ranked defense: is another problem. Missouri’s rim finishing has been questionable all year long and it was awful against Vandy. You hope at some point can find some better rim finishing as it’s cost them multiple games.

Player Stats

Your Trifecta: Noah Carter, Tamar Bates, Nick Honor

2024 study hall vanderbilt

On the season: Sean East II 41, Tamar Bates 28, Noah Carter 23, Nick Honor 15, Caleb Grill 6, Anthony Robinson II 5, Connor Vanover 4, Aidan Shaw 3, Trent Pierce 3, Jesus Carralero-Martin 2, Jordan Butler 1

Same ol’, same ol’ here. Just not enough contributors.

Tamar Bates had something of an off night and was still pretty good. He wasn’t as efficient, and struggled to get on track early, but at this point we know what we can get from Bates and it’s really very good.

Noah Carter came out of the gates hot and cooled in a hurry. He had 9 points in the first 2 minutes, and then 14 by halftime. Carter and Bates were the only players scoring. Nick Honor hit three 3s, Sean East chipped in an inefficient 9 points. The rest of the roster contributed four points on 10 shots.

2024 study hall vanderbilt

The lineups, usage rates, and more just tell the entire story of a team in a bit of a free fall. Or at least explains why they’re in a free fall. One of the storylines I mentioned in yesterday’s piece was about the expectations within the top 8 in the rotation and what’s transpired.

Seeing Mabor Majak with 47.5% minutes played, 0% usage... the reason his ORtg is so high is because he did collect some offensive rebounds, so by not using any possessions but extending others the algorithm kinda freaks out a bit. I don’t mean this to go after Majak, because I do think he does what he can. Still collecting nearly half the minutes at the five and getting zero defensive rebounds. Jordan Butler played 11 minutes and also collected no rebounds. Connor Vanover played 3 minutes and got one defensive rebound. So Mizzou played three players all 7’0 or over for 33 minutes and got one defensive rebound out of them. I’m not sure how that’s possible.

I mentioned before this game that being only a 57% chance to win coupled with Vanderbilt being a tougher out at home than on the road left this game in a more questionable area than most might want to admit. Losing was always a very real possibility. The path was laid out for Mizzou to do what they did against Pitt and walk out with a win, but they needed to be solid on the glass and shoot the ball reasonably well. Instead they shot 26.9% from three, 45.5% from two, and an ugly 37.3% overall. That’s not reanably well. On the glass Vanderbilt was +11 in raw rebounding and as I stated above had their best offensive rebounding game of the season.

You just can’t give away that many second chances to a team on the road, especially one who wants get out of the winless column like Vandy did.

Dennis Gates said after Arkansas that nobody is going to feel sorry for them, and we’ve talked about how good of a basketball coach Jerry Stackhouse is. He’s fumbled his roster this season, but Stack gave his team a shot and they took it. Coming home Wednesday to face Texas A&M, Dennis Gates has to give his own team that same shot to win.


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 on 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 that 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 approximates how many possessions an individual is responsible for within the team’s calculated possessions.

ShotRate%: This is the percentage of a team’s 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.