clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Study Hall: Texas A&M 79, Mizzou 60

Unfortunately you can’t just decide to reboot your season with 9 games to play.

study hall 2022

Let’s be honest here. We all knew how this was going to go the moment you read the news that Sean East was going to be out for the game. Texas A&M hasn’t been been as clean in conference play as they were a year ago, but they are also still very much the team who nearly won the league last year, led by mostly the same core of players.

The Aggies play a rather abhorrent style of play, but damn if it doesn’t work. They deploy virtually no lineups that touch offensive cohesion, but the efficiency remains because with an unlimited amount of opportunities at the rim you’re bound to get a few in the basket. And while I know there are some who still hold Buzz Williams in disregard in these parts, he’s a smart enough guy to know this was a game he couldn’t afford to drop. The upcoming schedule gets dicey with matchups against Tennessee (twice), South Carolina (I’m a believer now), and Alabama awaiting them. With opponents like that you have to beat a team like Missouri.

Couple the urgency from the Aggies with East being benched with a knee contusion and you have a bad recipe. But then with Dennis Gates deploying his style and approach to rebounding going against a team who knows it must get offensive boards to score and... uh, things were likely to get bumpy last night.

But there’s always a glimmer of hope right? The game was competitive for the first 13 minutes before a cold spell by the Tigers let A&M loose and get a comfortable 13 point lead going into half time. Mizzou came back and cut the lead to just 3 points with about 13 minutes to play before a stream of free throws for the Aggies gave additional cushion. Then the gas lines on the scoring output began to run dry, and the legs followed.

A sad predictable end. Man this year sucks.

Team Stats

2024 study hall texas a&m

If you had asked me to draw up a box for this game I probably would have come close to this. I think you all know me as being something of a more hopeful guy so I might have given slightly less margins. Maybe like 72-64 or something like that. But the rest lines up.

  • Nearly even shooting: But here is where we talk about the stylistic differences and when you can’t get the Turnover/ORB battle to get even... Texas A&M attempted 63 shots, Mizzou took 48. That’s right, they got 15 more shots at the rim. Only 6 more free throws, but that’s still roughly 18 more opportunities to score a few points. So when you shoot about the same percentage but get 18 fewer opportunities to score it’s going to add up to a sizeable double digit loss.
  • The minus 8.4 in expected rebounds almost seems generous after watching the game: A&M rebounded nearly half of their misses, Mizzou collected just five of their own.
  • Missing Sean East will cause the BCI to take a hit: and it did take a large hit but mostly through pushing everyone else out of their role. Mizzou’s 12 turnovers weren’t outrageous, but four of them came from the usually sure handed Nick Honor.

Player Stats

Your Trifecta: Tamar Bates, Nick Honor, Noah Carter

2024 study hall texas a&m

On the season: Sean East II 41, Tamar Bates 31, Noah Carter 24, Nick Honor 17, Caleb Grill 6, Anthony Robinson II 5, Connor Vanover 4, Aidan Shaw 3, Trent Pierce 3, Jesus Carralero-Martin 2, Jordan Butler 1

Players who did not get a rest in the second half: Tamar Bates, Noah Carter, Nick Honor. Curt Lewis played 15 minutes, Jordan Butler played 11. Nick Honor and Tamar Bates combined for 31 shots, and 7 turnovers, with so few offensive rebounds being grabbed, the numbers work out to be 37 possessions of a 62 possession game. And look, they performed admirably! They provided 39 points on 37 possessions against a really solid defense. If you add in Noah Carter you hit 50 points on 46 possessions, which is roughly 1.09 points per possession. That’s just a heavy workload for guys who you aren’t really dubbing heavy workload players.

This is Mizzou’s “By Committee” approach when there’s no committee left.

2024 study hall texas a&m

It’s just a sad state, because offensively Mizzou wasn’t that bad when you consider everything here. They turned the ball over a few too many times, and they allowed A&M to shoot only 19 Free Throws which is TWENTY less than the last go around. But if you think what the offensive rebounding does for Texas A&M, and you look at the True Shooting Percentage and how it’s calculated, but then also factor in attempts... the Aggies generated 72 looks at the rim (this is what multiplier is used in TS% — so 79 total points divided by 2 times (FGA + (0.475*FTA)). Missouri generated 54. The free throws and the offensive rebounds added up to 18 extra looks, and Mizzou lost by a point.

It felt like Missouri threatened a few times, but in reality they weren’t causing the Aggies enough trouble by turning them over, keeping them away from offensive rebounds, and keeping them off the line.

This is all easier said than done of course. They’re good at what they do for a reason, it’s hard to stop, and even moreso when you’re as shorthanded as the Tigers are.

So that’s what happened, it all sucked. It’s not looking like things will get all that much better. There’s a game on Saturday against a team similar to Texas A&M in Mississippi State. Then a week off before they play again the following Saturday.

I just want to get a win somewhere.


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.