Previewing the South Carolina Gamecocks Men’s Basketball team. How will Lamont Paris make his encore?

Two years ago, everyone under the sun, myself included, predicted a difficult entry for Lamont Paris into SEC Basketball. We were largely correct. South Carolina didn’t have the dubious claim of being the worst team in the league, but they did secure the league’s worst KenPom rating by around 70 spots.

Without the NBA talent of G.G. Jackson heading into last season, Carolina’s prospects were grim again. The Gamecocks were picked last by just about everyone, including most analytics services (except for Kenpom, which projected a top-70 finish but was still in the bottom four of the league). We picked them last.

They did not finish last. South Carolina finished in a four-way tie for second place with Auburn, Alabama, and Kentucky. A tiebreaker sent them to the 5th seed in the conference tournament, where they were blown out by No. 4 seed Auburn. On Selection Sunday, Paris’ group was handed a No. 6 seed in the NCAA Tournament. There, they lost to Oregon in the first round. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s easy to see how Paris’ team found success. They defended, forcing teams to settle for defended jump shots, then kept them off the glass. The offense could stall out sometimes, but with guys like Meechie Johnson and B.J. Mack, there was enough to get by.

So why are we so low on the Gamecocks after they proved everyone wrong last year? Maybe we’ll be forced to learn another harsh lesson in doubting Lamont Paris, but while last year’s team had many questions about them, this year’s team has even more.

South Carolina Gamecocks

Last season: 26 – 8 (13-5 in conference) #54

The Masses Prediction: 13th in conference, 5 – 13

Analytics Average: 16th in conference, 71st overall

Photo by Tim Nwachukwu/Getty Images

HEAD COACH: Lamont Paris | 3rd Season, 37-29

Nobody knows how innacurate early season picks can be like Lamont Paris. Last year, when the Gamecocks were picked last, he opined to an SEC scribe:

Does anyone know how many of those (picks) were right? Zero.

But wait. There’s more. Paris calculated the deviations and found that seven of the 14 picks were off by more than four spots, one pick was off by seven spots, and another by eight places.

He’s right! Most of the time, preseason picks are bad! Part of this comes down to the fact that only a few teams are good, a few are bad, and everyone else is very close to each other. So, results tend to fall within a few possessions here and there to sort out the order.

South Carolina used that recipe last season en route to their most conference wins since going 15-1 in the 1997 season under Eddie Fogler. They won close games, and they look a lot like the Wisconsin teams. Paris was an assistant coach for so many seasons. Paris came up under Bo Ryan from 2010 to 2017 when the Badgers were rarely the most talented team in the Big Ten but always contended for league titles through reliable defense and disciplined offense.

Last year, Paris proved he can do the rest when he has enough talent.

If there’s a challenge in front of Paris, it’s finding consistency where you routinely make the tournament. That’s tough at a school that has only lightly supported basketball over the years. In terms of where fans have traditionally spent their time, attention, and money, it’s been football first and then baseball next, ahead of hoops. Dawn Staley has proven you can win big in basketball, but she’s also a unicorn, and women’s hoops are not as competitive as the men’s game. Meanwhile, the men’s program has seen NCAA Tournament play just five times since joining the SEC in 1991.

In contrast, Mizzou has made the tournament four times since joining the SEC in 2012, with a 5th trip the season before. In fact, South Carolina has the lowest tournament appearance rate in the SEC by a good margin.

They’ve only made five trips since 1996-97; the only comparable peers are Georgia and Ole Miss. Next are LSU and Mississippi State. Meanwhile, eleven SEC schools have made the tournament five times since 2011.

The expectations just aren’t there.

LOST PRODUCTION

Minutes: 51.77% | 6th
Points: 58.12% | 7th
Possessions: 56.95% | 7th

If you were to glance at the numbers above, it might not be so bad for the Gamecocks as they prepare for the 2024-25 season. But there are some significant losses. Paris marched through the SEC a season ago with a relatively tight seven-player rotation. There were a few other spot appearances, but on a nightly bases he was funnelling 85% of the teams minutes toward that core. Four of them are back, but the three who are gone were ranked first, second, and third in minutes. They were also the top three scorers. And the top three in possessions used.

The two players who significantly influenced the team’s possession (36% of the team’s total all year) were Mack and Johnson. Mack’s eligibility has expired, and Johnson has chosen to transfer back home to play for Ohio State in his final year. Another significant departure is Ta’lon Cooper, the starting point guard who provided a stabilizing influence for the Gamecocks last year. While not a primary scorer or a major possession player, Cooper managed to occupy 83% of the minutes at his position.

Steve Roberts-Imagn Images

The best news of the offseason for Lamont Paris was the return of Collin Murray-Boyles.

Murray-Boyle’s stats are also constrained by the fact he missed six games to start the year with mononucleosis. That illness also limited his minutes in another eight outings. From the start of SEC play, he averaged 26.6 minutes per game.

Entering this season, Murray-Boyles is a favorite among NBA draftniks. But unlike last season, the sophomore won’t be an X-factor while defenses focus on Johnson, Cooper and Mack. (As his usage and role expand, it’ll be worth monitoring whether he posts a similarly gaudy 121.5 offensive rating.) Murray-Boyles wasn’t a floor spacer, as he only attempted five 3s all season, but you can get away with that when you shoot over 60% on your 2-point shots.

What Paris desperately needs is a proven secondary threat. At the moment, the best candidate might be Myles Staute. The vet, who transferred in from Vanderbilt last season, has shown he’s a trustworthy defender and capable spot-up threat. But experiments with him as a primary ball-handler have gone poorly.

Per Synergy Sports, Stute’s efficiency plummets to roughly 0.5 points per possession, while his turnover rate spikes to nearly 40 percent. As much as Stute perceives himself as an advantage creator, the data says otherwise.

That leaves Norfolk State transfer Jamarii Thomas as the only player with a heavy usage history. As a pick-and-roll ball handler, Thomas excels. They made up 29% of his possessions last season, and he averaged 0.918 PPP. But this remains a tough sell, because those possessions were primarily run in the MEAC, a low-major conference, and Thomas is an undersized guard trying to make the jump to the SEC.

Randy Sartin-Imagn Images

A challenge with these projections is forecasting usage rates for players who have not traditionally been key cogs but will need to take on a greater number of possessions for this South Carolina roster to work.

Last season, South Carolina played 34 games at a pace of around 65 possessions per contest. That works out to over 2,200 possessions to distribute among the entire roster. When Johnson, Cooper, and Mack left, they took 1,088 possessions, which is 57 percent of the Gamecocks’ total.

Next, let’s look at how many possessions each transfer tallied up at their last stop:

• Jamarii Thomas: 588
• Nick Pringle: 203
• Jordan Butler: 71

That’s 862 touches. It’s also unlikely that Cam Scott, a four-star freshmen, would backfill the remaining 226 possessions. What’s more likely is that role players will have to scale up their usage, which is a risky proposition. Ideally, Paris would be figuring out to optimize ways to use his talent. Instead, he might be in a position where some members of this rotation are being asked to do a bit too much.

Early projections have the SEC being a very strong league. The benefit of this is it creates opportunities all over. Every road game being a Quad One game is how you can find yourself in the tournament discussion if you’re able to steal a few. Paris set South Carolina up for success with his scheduling, early challenges against Indiana and in the Fort Meyer’s Classic against Xavier are Q1 opportunities, and even Towson, Clemson, and East Carolina will be well looked upon as Q2 and Q3 wins (if you can win them).

The conference schedule isn’t bad for the Gamecocks either, Mississippi State, Florida, and Georgia look tough on paper but none of those teams are currently viewed as likely top 4 finishers. All of the home games are against teams many project in the top half of the conference, and there are several road games against the bottom half. That’s what you call opportunity. In this league, this year, that’s all you can ask.

THE RULING

Lamont Paris is right about preseason picks. They’re often wrong, but they provide a snapshot of the offseason.

Carolina proved doubters last season. So, why are we forecasting them at the bottom of the standings again?

Unlike last season, Paris’ roster doesn’t have 824 games of experience, which ranked fourth in the SEC. Nor are the Gamecocks second in minutes played. Yes, the Gamecocks were overlooked, but they also leaned hard on experience to prove doubters wrong.

This year, the case has flipped. Carolina ranks 15th in games played and last in minutes played at the Division-I level. Murray-Boyles might wind up as an All-SEC performer, but who will complement him in Paris’ rotation? Making up lost production hinges on Thomas hitting it big and replacing what Johnson provided.

Per EvanMiya.com, Thomas projects to finish with a 2.30 BPR, which would have ranked 85th in the SEC last season. That’s well behind Johnson’s performance. We’ve also run through what might hold Stute back from being a headliner.

While I fully expect Murray-Boyles to be awesome, there are questions about how efficiently he does what Paris needs done. Again, he didn’t power the Gamecocks’ offense last season as a playmaker. Murray-Boyles relied on others to set him up. Meanwhile, his 17% assist rate tells us the sophomore isn’t an elite facilitator.

Suppose South Carolina is going to see around the same 2,200 offensive possessions this year. In that case, I’d want Murray-Boyles to handle close to 600 of them, including assists. That’s a 27% usage rate while playing 82.3% of minutes. Over the past five seasons, just four SEC players put up similar figures: J.D. Notae, Wade Taylor IV, Scotty Pippen Jr., and Cam Thomas.

All those players were ball-dominant combo guards, and three were focused heavily on scoring. That’s not to say Murray-Boyles isn’t capable. Still, history tells us that it would be an outlier — and not exactly an ideal recipe for Paris to make doubters dine on crow again.

My Results: South Carolina Gamecocks — 16th in Conference, 5-13

About the preview: a number of respected basketball bloggers were asked to submit one pick for the entire league schedule game by game. The game by game option allows us to account for the unbalanced schedule when addressing any kind of power rankings. Each set of picks are reflected in “the Masses” picks. Included in “the Masses” are various SEC media members who made picks at my request, as well as additional credit given to the analytics projections.

If you’d like to submit your picks, click here for the Google Form we used. If you want to know your results, send me an email.

Additionally, instead of relying solely on KenPom.com for the analytics site projections, we’re taking the average of the four main sites (EvanMiya.com, BartTorvik.com, Haslametrics.com, and KenPom.com) to give a closer consensus picture. These are weighted a touch for reliability.

The projections: This is new! In an attempt to be as accurate as we could be we increased the amount of analytics used to make individual projections which influenced how these teams slotted in order. Matt Watkins used an indepth method for projecting the entire SEC transfer list, we then mixed in EvanMiya.com’s BPR projections, and BartTorvik.com’s preseason individual projections to round out the expected production based upon how each coach routinely uses his rotations.

GLOSSARY

* – an asterisk denotes a walk-on player

GP – Games Played

%min – percentage of total available minutes played, does not account for time missed due to injury

%poss – percentage of team possessions the player is responsible for ending a possession, whether by making a shot, missing a shot not rebounded by the offense or committing a turnover. For returning players this is noted as a percentage of total team possessions. For newcomers it was total possessions when that player was on the floor, better known as Usage Rate.

ORtg – Offensive Rating, similar to a points per possession but averaged out over 100 possessions. So it’s how many points a player would score if they were responsible for 100 possessions.

BPR – Bayseian Performance Rating, a single player efficiency metric created by Evan Miyakawa to determine both offensive and defensive impact when a player is on the floor.

PPG – Points Per Game, RPG – Rebounds Per Game, APG – Assists Per Game: All traditional statistics used to measure player production.

For newcomer player rankings, we used EvanMiya.com’ s rankings for transfers, and 247sports.com ‘s Composite Rating for Freshmen and Junior College signees.

The Tigers are looking to keep their eyes forward and put the woes of last season behind them.

A new season awaits for head coach Dennis Gates and the Missouri Tigers with the message being clear, this season is a new one and the woes of last season are in the past. Gates reflected that in his opening statements at Missouri’s first open media day of the season.

“You can’t predict the things that we went through last year, but I’m not focused on last year,” Gates said. “I’m focused on what’s coming forward and what’s moving forward.”

The ground zero mentality from Gates and his crew is a welcome one, as the Tigers finished last season 8-24 with an 0-18 record in conference play. The ceiling for this group is nothing to scoff at, as Gates is shooting for the stars.

“Our goal is to play in the Alamodome,” Gates said.

This season’s Final Four will be hosted in San Antonio, a feat that Missouri has never accomplished in its history. Incoming Northern Kentucky transfer Marques Warrick, corroborated Gates’ high goals.

“Our goal is to win at whatever cost. We all have certain roles and things we need to do,” Warrick said. “For me individually, just doing the best to help this team win.”

Warrick comes in as the NCAA’s leader in points among active players, bringing a needed veteran presence to a lineup headlined by its younger stars. One of those younger stars is Marcus Allen, a 6-7 freshman out of Florida, labeled as the No. 74 recruit in the country by ESPN.

“We have a great group; we love playing with each other,” Allen said. “That atmosphere and that camaraderie is what brings us together.”

Words like that are specifically why Gates has such high praise for this group, a group he says that “understands their obstacles.”

“Our guys have diligently been working hard and giving their very best while connecting on all cylinders,” Gates said. “I’m excited about this group and looking forward to the sounds of [Mizzou Arena].”

While the praise is high, the approach to this group in particular is a precise one for the third year head coach. The tally of newcomers this season is eleven, making the idea of building chemistry a focal point as the season approaches.

“We want to make sure these guys are connected in a certain way, not just physically when they go out and perform,” Gates said. “But emotionally and mentally so they have the endurance to stick together and do the things necessary while sharpening each others’ blade everyday.”

For most in the college basketball world, it is hard to overlook the future with this Missouri Tiger squad with a boatload of promising newcomers. However, with veterans such as Warrick, Tamar Bates, and Caleb Grill this team is poised to try and make a run at postseason basketball after a disappointing end to last season. The excitement among this group is palpable and only one question remains—can this group put out the performance that backs up their words ahead of the season.

The top-30 talent and headliner of a ballyhooed recruiting class might find the best route to minutes is wreaking havoc on defense and in the open floor.

Over the weeks leading up to the season, this series will dive deep into the players we see making a push for time in the rotation for the 2024-2025 Missouri basketball squad. The pieces read like a birds-eye scouting report. They skew more toward the offensive end of the court for two reasons. First, a player’s offensive metrics are more reliable than defensive data and less team-dependent. Second, it’s considerably easier to describe a player’s qualities with more well-known offensive statistics. As always, we encourage interaction from our readers. Please drop us a comment or find me on Twitter @DataMizzou.

The film credits are given to Matt Harris. Matt has provided all of the film used in this series, and the team has plenty more video and analysis on every player that can be found on https://rockm.plus.

The Player

When Annor Boateng committed to Missouri, it was easy to frame the decision as a pivot point in coach Dennis Gates’ tenure.

The Tigers pulled off a cross-border incursion to pluck a top-50 prospect from Arkansas when Hogs’ program looked healthy. On the court, Boateng was wrapping a stretch where his streaky jumper found a measure of relative calm. Back then, it was easy to imagine Boateng’s senior campaign at Little Rock Central as one of resolution – a state title for his squad and resolving lingering questions about his skill set.

Well, one of those came to pass.

For Boateng, though, his shooting stroke reverted to flakiness, and his handle still needed tightening. His ceiling as a freshman might hinge on how much progress he has made since arriving this summer, but MU’s roster refurbishing might have blunted the pressure for him to deliver quick returns.

For starters, Tamar Bates stuck around. Caleb Grill received a medical redshirt. And the Tigers pulled Jacob Crews from the transfer portal. Across nine seasons, that trio has connected on 35.5 percent of catch-and-shoot 3s – a blend of experience and shooting that serves as a buffer if Boateng’s stroke isn’t dialed in early.

As you’ll see, Boateng assaults the rim in ways that optimally align with MU’s scheme — and don’t involve him attacking a gap against a set defense off the bounce. So, success might be a matter of Boateng translating what he already does well.

The Numbers

Arkansas PBS

Assessing Boateng’s most recent sample of play demanded a concession.

When he suited up for Central, Boateng was part of a six-man rotation featuring only one proper interior option in C.J. Washington, a 6-foot-8 forward. As a result, Boateng, who stands 6-foot-6, slid down the positional ladder to play as a four-man. Spacing the floor in four-out sets wasn’t a significant compromise, but the more consequential adaptation saw Boateng draw defensive assignments that kept him around the mid-post and elbows.

Those tradeoffs didn’t dent Boateng’s productivity. (He still repeated as Arkansas’ Gatorade Player of the Year.) But on film, Boateng doesn’t always conform to our traditional idea of a wing.

Boateng’s best source of on-ball opportunities came in transition, usually via a grab-and-go or by creating a live-ball turnover. As the clips illustrate, Boateng’s a terror if there’s open hardwood in front of him, but it’s worth watching how he maneuvers with a bit of congestion.

Boateng’s blend of size and strength made a defender’s attempt to stop the ball futile. His handle and wiggle were also good enough to attack slivers of space and pry them open when a defense tried to build a wall. Boateng’s finishing package hinted at some diversity, particularly footwork that helped him reach the rim with his stronger right hand.

Boateng’s efforts weren’t flawless, though.

He averaged 0.923 points per possession when leading the break, and it’s not hard to identify the source of drag: turnovers. Boateng gave the ball away 36.8 percent when leading the break. And almost half of those giveaways came from a loose handle, making it easy for defenders to get a paw on the ball and strip it out.

Now the good news: Boateng’s turnover rate drops to 10.2 percent in transition situations where he’s running the floor. Those touches were also worth 1.220 points, the efficiency you want to see from a player who makes a large part of their living on the break.

Once Central initiated a set, Boateng ceded much of the responsibility for advantage creation to Luke Moore and Daniel Culberson. Yet the Tigers spent the early part of last season jetting around the country playing in showcase tournaments, where opponents sometimes defaulted to zone to take Central out of rhythm. In that situation, Boateng excelled as a cutter flashing into pockets of space or darting along the baseline for lobs.

So, Boateng can be potent in transition and as a cutter — two traits vital for a wing in Gates’ system. But does he shoot it well enough to maintain optimal spacing?

Well…

Last July and August, Boateng’s performance on the 3SSB circuit and some elite prospect camps offered hints that stability wasn’t far away. However, those results were fleeting. As a senior at Central, Boateng made just 28.2 percent of his catch-and-shoot 3s, including 14 of 52 hoisted up from spot-up situations. And that performance improved from the 25.2 percent mark Boateng produced as a junior.

Watching Boateng shoot the ball creates a frustrating dissonance. His mechanics look great, but the results don’t match up. It’s enough to make you look up wonky material on the biomechanics behind shooting to see if you can diagnose what goes awry, which creates more frustration because — at first glance — there’s nothing glaringly broken about Boateng’s jumper.

To add another wrinkle, Boateng showed some intriguing proficiency when attempting 3s off the dribble, particularly the one-dribble variety out of high pick-and-rolls. But then you look at the whole picture, and Boateng’s 3-pointing shooting off the bounce (25.4%) closely mirrors his results off the catch.

Still, Boateng wouldn’t be the first highly-rated wing needing time to calibrate their stroke. Over the past five years, wings rated in the top 50 of 247’s composite index typically knocked down 31 percent of 3s taken off the catch. Their volume of attempts (1.5 per game) was also modest enough that it didn’t exert much sway in how opponents crafted game plans.

Or think of it this way: Boateng shooting 35 percent from 3-point range on three attempts per game would qualify as an outlier performance. Again, MU’s inventory of proven shooters is enough that Boateng won’t face overwhelming pressure to deliver that kind of performance.

When Boateng catches, rips through, and gets going in a straight line, he can wreak havoc, averaging 1.30 points on possessions where he reaches the rim. There’s also some clean-up work when Boateng tries playing downhill from spot-up situations. He turned the ball over 26.6% of the time using his right hand.

Boateng might drag his pivot foot or extend his off arm in early-clock settings. However, there are possessions where his first step doesn’t create separation, forcing Boateng to reset and go again. It’s the secondary attack where he might initiate contact to get his shoulders past a defender, or the ball gets away from his body.

Boateng’s application of defensive tools might be the handiwork that earns him more playing time.

In almost every setting we’ve seen him, he’s been a reliable off-ball defender who does rote work like closing down shooters. Last season, they only knocked down 27.1 percent of 3-point looks when Boateng put a hand in their faces.

As noted earlier, Boateng’s role at Central meant he spent more time matched against frontline players. A downstream result is the limited volume of on-ball possessions against perimeter threats, but he held his own in our sample of touches. For example, he only allowed 0.389 points when handling a player in isolation.

Boateng also excelled at taking away the right hand from drivers. And in some of the snippets, you’ll notice he’s in situations where big men attempt to bully him on drives from the elbow.

In June, we tried to rationally forecast how many minutes each of MU’s freshmen should expect to see. In Boateng’s case, the median allotment is roughly 14 minutes each night. That might seem modest for a recruit of his caliber, but that dosage makes sense under modern approaches to roster building.

We’ve already alluded to the presence of Bates, Grill and Crews creating veteran congestion on the wing, but alternate routes are also hard to find. Boateng received sporadic chances to work as a secondary creator with the Arkansas Hawks, but those evaporated out of necessity with Central. So, it’s hard to foresee Boateng stealing time at combo guard.

If we take Boateng’s skill set at face value, it might be best suited for small-ball configurations where Boateng’s length and physicality might make life hell in traps and he can backfill some rebounding. Offensively, he might have more opportunities to get in the open floor and assault the rim. And if his jumper has progressed to the point where he’s a replacement-level spacer, Gates could increase the dosage of PT.

The Role

Arkansas PBS

Come November, Annor Boateng will have a spot in the nightly rotation. Three things will determine where he lands in the rotation:

1. The shooting mentioned above
2. How well the other wings in Mizzou’s deep bench are playing
3. His health; Boateng was sidelined for stretches with a lingering leg injury this summer

Reviewing similarly rated freshman wings over recent years tells us that the average minutes played mark is between 40% and 45% — or between 16 and 18 minutes per contest. For Boateng, we feel that may be a little aggressive, based on the three considerations above.

Mizzou has many bodies vying for time at the off-ball perimeter positions, including Crews, Bates, Grill, and Marcus Allen. If you stretch the positional alignment slightly, you add players like Aidan Shaw, Mark Mitchell and Trent Pierce to the equation. The house is indeed crowded.

We’re willing to bet on Annor’s exceptional abilities in the open court and on defense to carve out a solid role. We see him getting around 30% of minutes — 12 minutes per night — with the potential for more if his offensive game has advanced. A projected usage rate of 18% would fall directly in line with prior examples of freshman wings of his star profile.

Much of Boateng’s success in the point column will be tied to how well Mizzou performs as a team and how fast they can play. Should the expectations be met, Boateng could see a respectable 4-5 points per night.

PPP: Points Per Possession

Min %: This is simply the percentage of minutes played by a given player.

Usage %: A measure of personal possessions used while player is on the court. This includes making a shot, missing a shot coupled with a defensive rebound and a turnover.

eFG%: Same as traditional FG% with the added bonus of 3-point shots given 50% more weight to account for additional point.

OR%: The percentage of possible offensive rebounds a player gets.

DR%: The percentage of possible defensive rebounds a player gets.

AST%: Assists divided by field goals made by player’s teammates while on the court.

TO%: The percentage of personal possessions a player uses on turnovers.

FTR%: A rate which measures a player’s ability to get to the free throw line.

FT%: Free Throw shooting percentage.

2PT%: 2-point field goal percentage.

3PT% 3-point field goal percentage.

The Morning Commute for Wednesday, October 9th

Welcome to the Morning Commute

Today we’re talking about schadenfreude. At least I am, because it helps me cope when my team gets pantsed like the Tigers did last Saturday at Texas A&M. If you haven’t seen this week’s SEC Shorts video, check it out below. The SEC Shorts team takes great pleasure in delighting over Vanderbilt’s massive win over #1 Alabama, and their send-up of the subject matter is great entertainment.

It’s a great reminder of no matter how bad you’re feeling about your team’s demise, it can always be worse. Right? Please tell me it can’t get worse!

Piling onto the ‘Bama angst is a weekly column from the AL.com paper about the fashion choices of first-year Crimson Tide coach Kalen DeBoer. Wow, people are uptight down there when they lose one game they weren’t expecting to.

Yesterday at Rock M and Rock M+

• Consider yourself a glutton for punishment? Then share your pain with Nate Edwards as he breaks down the Tigers’ no-show at Texas A&M in his weekly Beyond the Box Score.

What can you learn about a game that went into garbage time after the first play of the second half? I’d argue: not much.

Give Nate credit for trying to come up with some positive analytics from that game. Even though it was mostly fruitless, it was a solid effort.

• Trying to approach the blood letting at College Station with some levity is a challenging task, but Josh Matejka does it admirably with his weekly Revue column.

Anyway, the comical nature of Mizzou’s failing to show up has fully set in after 48 hours of rumination, and it reminds of a I Think You Should Leave sketch in which the premise of a high quality performance is immediately abandoned for something far more sad and somewhat sinister.

How many ways can you replicate a kick to the groin in one article? I don’t know what the world record is, but Josh gave it his best shot.

• Hoops season is fast approaching, and Sam Snelling brings you his continuing series of opponent previews. Yesterday featured the Alabama State Hornets.

In the past, Missouri teams have used this game as a forgettable getaway game. Last year it was Central Arkansas, a few years back it was Chicago State, I remember Kim Anderson’s last team beating Arkansas Pine Bluff 78-25 on December 29th. I don’t think Alabama State will be that bad, but they won’t be that good either.

The Hornets play at Mizzou Arena on December 30th to wrap up the non-conference portion of the schedule.

• Yesterday’s Morning Commute by Sammy Stava featured TV/kick time designations for Mizzou’s Homecoming game against Auburn and a look at the complete schedule for all of Mizzou’s fall sport programs.

We’ll know a lot more about this team the following Saturday. Mizzou’s Homecoming game against Auburn will kick-off at 11:00 a.m. or 11:45 a.m. CST. It will either be on ESPN or the SEC Network.

• Coach Drinkwitz and Tiger players met with the local media on Tuesday. Check out what they had to say.

• Bookmark this page as Football Central to keep tabs on all the content produced by Rock M Nation leading up to Mizzou’s game this Saturday at UMass. Wait, at UMass? Yes, he said at UMass.

• Catch what was discussed Tuesday at Tiger Talk right here.

• Over at Rock M+, we’re talking about football and how many games it takes to establish an identity, as well as pre-season picks related to the upcoming hoops season.

Rock M Radio: Big News for Mizzou Gymnastics

Subscribe to Rock M Radio on Apple Podcasts. Or stream episodes through Megaphone or Spotify. Have a question for us? Leave a 5-star review with your question and that show just might answer it in an upcoming episode!

If you like Rock M Radio drop us a Review and be sure to subscribe on your preferred podcasting platform. Follow @RockMRadio on Twitter and if you heaven’t already head over to our YouTube channel and click that subscribe button!

• (** RockMNation has affiliate partnerships. These do not influence editorial content, though RockMNation may earn commissions for products purchased via affiliate links.**)

The last non-conference matchup is a SWAC team! Only this one should be decent.

Missouri announced their entire schedule on Tuesday August 20th. And if you’ve read this blog in the past, you know SEC previews are coming, but first we wanted to spend a little time looking at the non-conference slate. So here is the announced non-con schedule:

• Nov 4 – Road at Memphis
• Nov 8 – Home vs Howard
• Nov 11 – Home vs Eastern Washington
• Nov 14 – Home vs. Miss. Valley State
• Nov 22 – Home vs Pacific
• Nov 24 – Home vs Arkansas Pine Bluff
• Nov 27 – Home vs Lindenwood
• Dec 3 – Home vs Cal (ACC-SEC Challenge)
• Dec 8 – Home vs kansas
• Dec 14 – LIU
• Dec 17 – Jacksonville State
• Dec 22 – Neutral vs. Illinois
• Dec 30 – Home vs Alabama State

In the past I’ve gone a bit deeper on these previews than I will here. Think of this series more of a quick-cap than a full-on preview. As the season nears, we’ll have deeper previews, and it’s also easier to preview a team when some games have been played.

With Memphis, Howard, Eastern Washington, Mississippi Valley State, Pacific, Arkansas Pine Bluff, Lindenwood, California, kansas, LIU, Jacksonville State and the Fighting Illini all done we’re at the end. The last team in the non-conference slate, the Alabama State Hornets.

In the past, Missouri teams have used this game as a forgettable getaway game. Last year it was Central Arkansas, a few years back it was Chicago State, I remember Kim Anderson’s last team beating Arkansas Pine Bluff 78-25 on December 29th. I don’t think Alabama State will be that bad, but they won’t be that good either.

Alabama State Hornets

Welcome to another episode of Life in the SWAC! As the day turns, Alabama State has scheduled UNLV, LSU, Cincinnati, SMU and Missouri for this upcoming schedule. Their full schedule isn’t updated on their homepage as I’m writing this (which is well before it’s being published), but last year they faced Ole Miss, Iowa, Memphis, LSU, USC, Auburn and South Florida. So I guess there’s room for a few more high majors!

As I’ve said before, you have to give some credit to these teams who schedule this way because it does help them fund their program. Taking checks from high majors and only super rarely pulling off a win. In the history of KenPom, Alabama State has exactly two top 100 wins. In 2005 they beat South Alabama (85th), and in 2015 they beat Virginia Tech (63rd). So roughly once every 10 years. Each of those wins were early in the season, so the 2015-16 season, meaning ASU is due… next year. Take it easy, guys.

Petre Thomas-Imagn Images

Head Coach | Tony Madlock | 3rd Season 21-42

A well-travelled coach isn’t necessarily a bad thing! Tony Madlock is an experienced bench coach with a long history of being an assistant in the SEC. Madlock was a multi-year starter for Memphis (then Memphis State) in the late 80s and early 90s. His senior year he started in the backcourt with Penny Hardaway as those Tigers finished 23-11 and captured a #6 seed in the NCAA Tournament, taking down Arkansas on their way to an Elite 8.

He quickly stepped into coaching, going back to his high school alma mater in 1995, before making the jump to Arkansas State to coach with… did you guess it? Dickey Nutt! That’s right the current Missouri assistant was the head coach at Arkansas State in 1997 when he hired Madlock as an assistant, giving Tony his break into D1 coaching.

In 2006 he left ASU for UTEP under Tony Barbee, who took Madlock with him when Barbee got the job at Auburn. When Barbee was fired at Auburn, Madlock hooked on at Ole Miss under Andy Kennedy (#AKHive) and then went back to Memphis to work with Penny the first few years before taking the head coaching job at South Carolina State and then Alabama State.

Things aren’t easy at Alabama State, but Madlock is in a familiar area, the SEC recruiting footprint, and he’s largely done a solid job of keeping his team competitive within the conference.

What about the team now?

The online roster isn’t up to date, so here’s the investigation.

Last year the leading scorer was Madlock’s son T.J. Madlock, who averaged 15.8 ppg as a junior. It looks like he’ll be back, which has to be a big upset for basically every team on Mizzou’s schedule, retaining their leading scorer is rare!

Second leading scorer, C.J. Hines was also a junior last year, and he is ALSO still enrolled! At least from what I can tell. Two for two! They even have Amarr Knox coming back as a junior. So three of their top four scorers are coming back.

It does look like ASU saw six players enter the transfer portal according to EvanMiya.com, but only one of them found a home on his site with Sean Smith going to Western Illinois. Micah Octave is missing from any rosters that I can find. Tadarius Jacobs ended up at Arkansas-Monticello. D’Ante Bass transferred in from Georgetown, played in two games, averaged 16 ppg and then seems to have disappeared off the planet. You see how hard this is to track some of these rosters?

Fortunately, when it comes to additions, ASU issued a press release touting 8 new additions:

• 6’2 Micah Simpson from Walters State CC
• 6’6 Jalen Keago from Pensacola State
• 6’7 Mario Andrews from Snead State CC
• 6’11 Jordan Marshall from Southern Union State CC
• 6’8 Kevin Alabi from Skyline Prep in Toronto
• 6’9 Jerquarius Stanback from Asheboro (NC) HS
• 6’6 Tyler Mack from MD-Eastern Shore
• 6’0 Shawn Fulcher from Buffalo

That’s 4 from JUCO, two prep schoolers, and two transfers. The ever-present BartTorvik.com projects both Madlock and Hines as double figure scorers, along with Knox at 10.6 ppg. Then Fulcher, the Buffalo transfer, just under double digits. Fulcher averaged 8.4 ppg for the Bulls last year. If all those things happen it’s easy to see how ASU could crack into the top of the SWAC this year.

Missouri is still favored by 18.6 points before the season. Remember, the Hornets once in a decade upset of a top 100 KenPom team has to wait until next season.

The freshman has dramatically reshaped his physique and worked on his passing reads, but his strength on defensive and the glass might earn steady minutes.

Over the weeks leading up to the season, this series will dive deep into the players we see making a push for time in the rotation for the 2024-2025 Missouri basketball squad. The pieces read like a birds-eye scouting report. They skew more toward the offensive end of the court for two reasons. First, a player’s offensive metrics are more reliable than defensive data and less team-dependent. Second, it’s considerably easier to describe a player’s qualities with more well-known offensive statistics. As always, we encourage interaction from our readers. Please drop us a comment or find me on Twitter @DataMizzou.

The film credits are given to Matt Harris. Matt has provided all of the film used in this series, and the team has plenty more video and analysis on every player that can be found on https://rockm.plus.

The Player

If you’re unaware, we’ve rigorously documented Peyton Marshall’s development through his commitment to Missouri and his senior campaign at Overtime Elite.

So, if you’re looking for a genuinely granular analysis of the big man’s game, there’s some background reading available.

The abridged version: Marshall, who grew up in St. Louis before moving to Atlanta, was an early priority for MU, which hosted him for an unofficial visit in the fall of 2022. Yet Auburn, which has built a pipeline into Marshall’s grassroots program, scored a pledge as the year wound down. Yet Bruce Pearl kept pursuing Flory Bidunga, an effort that might have prompted Marshall to reconsider his options. In April 2023, Marshall decommitted. Four months later, he picked MU.

Once the recruiting drama wound down, Marshall joined OTE and promptly reshaped his body. Earlier this year, he’d only shed eight pounds, but diligently working with the program’s nutritionist and strength staff had changed the distribution of that mass on his frame. After a summer in MU’s program, he’s dropped another 28 pounds. The Tigers’ updated roster recently listed Marshall at 7 feet and 300 pounds.

We’ll get to on-court matters shortly, but Marshall’s sweat equity is telling: He started working to prepare himself for life in the SEC long before he dropped bags in Columbia. Should that focus carry over to attacking skill development, there’s certainly reason for optimism about what Marshall can offer.

While Marshall’s quality fluctuated in the eyes of evaluators, the layover at OTE was helpful in several ways.

For starters, Marshall gained early exposure to life as a rotational player. Early on, he played for Cold Hearts, splitting time with Ole Miss commit John Bol. Then, he moved to RWE, which was without future Georgia big man Somto Cyril as he battled an injury. When Cyril returned in February, he and Marshall platooned at center.

Next, RWE coach Corey Frazier, another St. Louis native, steadily integrated tasks that would also be included in Marshall’s portfolio at Mizzou, like reading high and low split cuts on offense and playing in different pick-and-roll coverages. As we’ll see, the results could be mixed, but there’s no ideal time for growing pains, either.

Marshall got a jumpstart on foundational aspects of adjusting to high-major life: boosting stamina, adjusting to life as a role player, and digesting the first principles of MU’s scheme. And after this spring’s exit of Jordan Butler, that head start might only be more valuable if Marshall’s pressed into longer stretches of floor time.

The Numbers

Adam Hagy/Overtime Elite

When Marshall still suited up at Kell High School, his formula for success was rudimentary: catch the ball on the right block, pound out a dribble and finish at the rim. If necessary, he might drop step to the baseline. And if an opponent sent a double team, Marshall made simple passing reads out of the post to hit open teammates.

Yet life as a low-block operator hasn’t been so straightforward for a while.

When Marshall ventured out on the Adidas-backed 3SSB circuit, the scout was out, and the defenders trying to front or harass him were of a higher caliber. Last June, a trip to the Adidas Eurocamp exposed Marshall to some of the top rising talent abroad. Then, he capped his summer with a few days at Adidas’ All-American Camp. And finally, there was the move to OTE.

For the better part of 18 months, Marshall has routinely faced high-end prospects. That’s optimal for improvement, but it also dampens a stat line. Once Marshall’s run ended on the grassroots circuit, he settled into life as a player earning roughly 16 minutes per game with a usage rate of around 20 percent. This dosage of PT also happens to be toward the top end of the normal range for freshmen of his caliber.

Without a doubt, Marshall’s freshman season will expose him to another jump in talent. Still, for him and us, it’s handy that he’s already experienced a reasonable proxy to life in a high-major rotation.

Marshall’s bread and butter remains burying defenders on the block, but he’s steadily diversified how he dispenses punishment. One solution was simple: go to the other side of the lane. Working on the left block, Marshall could still vacate space with his shoulder, but slimming down means he’s lighter on his feet — and not solely reliant on pivoting to the baseline as a counter.

Yet RWE’s roster included a slew of high-major prospects, including five-star wing Karter Knox. The offense did not revolve around Marshall, and he often spent the early portion of a possession as a screener or reader. That meant rolling or cutting from the perimeter to the post. The tactics weren’t always cutting-edge. For example, Marshall might set a down screen for a guard, creating a mismatch he could exploit if a teammate fed him a quick entry pass.

The more notable evolution was RWE’s use of Marshall as a connector and reader in the kinds of actions and sets that are hallmarks of Gates’ system: delay, point, and chin. Those added responsibilities supplemented Marshall’s typical reads from the post.

What ties these actions together is how they invert the floor, lift the defense off the baseline, and task a big man with deciphering action in front of them. Those off-ball actions can be a thumbprint distinct to each program. In Columbia, the Tigers use split cuts, and there could be up to a dozen options. By contrast, the menu at OTE was more limited, and Marshall’s processing speed lagged somewhat.

While at OTE, Marshall’s assist rate was modest (9.39%), and he finished the season with a 0.4 assist-to-turnover ratio. We wouldn’t be surprised if Marshall’s decision-making remained boggy during freshman season. Again, the reads have multiplied, and bigger, stronger, and wiser defenders will harass Marshall.

The number we’ll keep monitoring is Marshall’s turnover rate. At OTE, he gave the ball away on nearly a quarter of his possessions. That has to come down. But we also need to monitor what kind of turnovers Marshall racks up. Is he plowing through defenders while forcing a post-up? Is he getting stripped going up for a putback? Or are his passes to teammates a split-second late or a bit off-target? If it’s the third variety, we can accept that as a byproduct of trying to create for others.

On the other end, Marshall’s no stranger to doing work early, winning the battle for post position and leaning on an opposing big. But his time at OTE’s facility in downtown Atlanta was about growing his comfort zone. That meant leaving the safe harbor of the lane and playing in space.

Over the winter, Frazier was adamant with me that he wasn’t going to hide Marshall as the backline anchor. When Marshall sat more than two steps below a pick-and-roll, that positioning was dictated by the scouting report to counter craftier guards or take away passing angles from screeners rolling toward the rim.

When we saw Marshall in mid-February, the baseline for RWE was sitting him in drop coverage. There were instances where Marshall blitzed a dribbler, but again, those were wrinkles dictated by opposing personnel and only in specific actions. He looked agile enough to stay attached to a driver’s hip and make finishing a tricky task, while his wingspan lets him have a cushion and contest pull-ups.

His agility improved to where he can reliably stay attached to a guard’s hip and complicate finishing angles. His length also allows him to concede some ground and contest some pick-and-pops.

And even on nights when he’s not guarding a traditional low-post operator, Marshall’s presence can be a deterrent as a timely help defender.

But again, Marshall could go about his work cleaner. He averaged 7.9 fouls per 40 minutes last season, a rate that would even make Jeremiah Tilmon blush. So, it’s not surprising that Marshall doesn’t cause disruption cleanly. For example, he committed two fouls for every block or steal he tallied. An efficient defender would have a balanced ledger.

It’s not hard to see negative downstream consequences. MU’s base coverage demands bigs show hard, pivot quickly and recover. Marshall’s feet are better than you think, but it’s not hard to envision some opponents targeting him and seeing if they can’t run up a foul count that relegates him to the bench.

This is why MU’s decision to pursue Gray looks heady. Over three seasons at South Carolina, he averaged 13.5 minutes per game against teams that finished in the top 100 of KenPom. Between him and Marshall, the Tigers could deploy brawnier post players for 30 minutes per game.

The Role

Dale Zanine/Overtime Elite

Perhaps the biggest question in Peyton Marshall’s role this year is not whether Mizzou should be able to use a true post on the floor but whether they will choose to do so.

As it pertains to Marshall, he and Gray are locked into one positional slot. There’s no sliding up the positional ladder, and under Gates, MU’s never used a twin-towers approach. These two imposing men represent the entirety of Mizzou’s true-post rotation. Viewing Marshall and Gray as a binary choice risks missing the plot. Using this frame is better: Is this a situation where they play well enough for their position to exist?

It’s fair to say Mizzou has lacked interior players with Gray and Marshall’s profiles. However, there’s still some helpful context that comes with looking at how much playing time Gates has dispensed to traditional post players. Among those who’ve passed through Columbia, here’s how their minutes have shaken out:

• Mohamed Diarra: 8.2 MPG
• Jordan Butler: 10 MPG
• Connor Vanover: 9.6 MPG
• Mabor Majak: 4.9 MPG

It’s not hard to claim that perhaps Marshall — and Gray — will be better players than the ones who came before. But it’s also worth pointing out that if they’re not, Gates hasn’t hesitated to go a different direction.

Looking outside the program, a dozen freshmen arrived at high-major programs with similar composite rankings in the past four years. Their average minute rate was 24.5% — just under 10 minutes a game. However, that has been boosted greatly by two first-year standouts in Cameron Corhen and Mouhamed Gueye. If you were to remove those two players from the sample, the rate drops to 15.6% — 6 minutes per contest.

With the uncertainty of how the battle for post supremacy between Marshall and Gray will shake out, coupled with the question of how often a center is utilized, I find that minutes projection to be a solid approximation, especially when that player is competing with 15 bodies for minutes. Marshall will see regular time in the back of the rotation, but it may well depend on the matchup whether it ever goes over a few minutes per half.

No matter, the staff has done well injecting size and physical brawn into this group for future years, and none better epitomizes that than Marshall. His minutes will go a long way in shaping the best-case scenario for the future of Mizzou’s program.

PPP: Points Per Possession

Min %: This is simply the percentage of minutes played by a given player.

Usage %: A measure of personal possessions used while player is on the court. This includes making a shot, missing a shot coupled with a defensive rebound and a turnover.

eFG%: Same as traditional FG% with the added bonus of 3-point shots given 50% more weight to account for additional point.

OR%: The percentage of possible offensive rebounds a player gets.

DR%: The percentage of possible defensive rebounds a player gets.

AST%: Assists divided by field goals made by player’s teammates while on the court.

TO%: The percentage of personal possessions a player uses on turnovers.

FTR%: A rate which measures a player’s ability to get to the free throw line.

FT%: Free Throw shooting percentage.

2PT%: 2-point field goal percentage.

3PT% 3-point field goal percentage.