
How do you pull out a win when you’re not at your best? Ring up Jacob Crews.
They can’t all be bangers.
The good news is Missouri is now 10-1, they’ve won 10 in a row, and their only loss is still very much a ‘good’ loss as Memphis continues to live in the 30s in most analytics markers. More good news is they played poorly and still won against a quality team.
Now, don’t be mistaken, Jacksonville State isn’t an SEC team. They’re not ranked. But they’re quality! They’re very close to the median D1 team in the KenPom.com ratings, and only the 4th opponent the Tigers have faced currently above 250 in the ratings. Plus, one thing Dennis Gates has done is line up a lot of very good basketball coaches. We’ve talked about Dan Monson and Dave Smart, and in my preseason preview for this game I talked plenty about Ray Harper. You worry about good coaches, and Harper had his team ready for this matchup.
It’s possible Dennis Gates team had their sights set on Braggin’ Rights this Sunday. But that still doesn’t excuse the slippage this team had on the defensive end. And mostly in one facet of the defensive end. Let’s hop on in.
Team Stats
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25795474/11_Jville_St_Game_Box.png)
For the month of November rebounding wasn’t a problem, but the month of December has seen Mizzou give up a minimum of 40% of the rebounds on the defensive end. The math makes that a challenge unless you’re really turning teams over. The turnover rate against Kansas was 30%, against LIU is was 23%, and then against Jacksonville State it was under 20%. Math maths when you can force enough turnovers to offset any offensive rebounding slippage.
- Mizzou was +9 in possessions minus turnovers, but they were -4 in FGA: This is where the math doesn’t math. Take 4 field goal attempts off the floor at 1.2 points per shot, that’s nearly 5 points. Five plus 11 (the final margin) and you’re at 16 points which was roughly the expected margin. So I’ll just say again… just don’t be awful on the glass!
- The thing about good coaches: is they’re excellent about bending the game to their will. This game was played at Jacksonville State’s pace and on their terms. Slow, methodical, second chance points, frustration.
- If you’re not going to win the turnover / rebounding ration, at least don’t turn the ball over: and Mizzou did not cough up the ball. 3 turnovers total and a sub 5% turnover rate? That hasn’t happened in the KenPom era. I looked and couldn’t find an instance of Mizzou having fewer than 4 turnovers. Two of those have happened under Dennis Gates, but never have the Tigers had as few as 3 turnovers. Noteworthy at least.
I never want to be dismissive any a good shooting night. I just get a little annoyed when you need a good shooting night to beat a team you should beat with an average or poor shooting night. Call it the Eastern Washington principle.
Player Stats
Your Trifecta: Mark Mitchell, Jacob Crews, Trent Pierce
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25795476/11_Jville_St_Player_Box.png)
On the season: Mark Mitchell 17, Anthony Robinson II 12, Tamar Bates 12, Caleb Grill 7, Trent Pierce 7, Marques Warrick 6, Tony Perkins 3, Jacob Crews 2, Aidan Shaw 1
It’s been a bit of a weird year if you bake in expectations, but Mark Mitchell is looking a lot like the player Mizzou thought they were getting when he committed this past offseason from Duke. It’s easy to think of his uneven performances to start the season, but in their last four games he’s averaging 17.6 points on 54.8% from 2FG, and while he’s only shooting 28.6% from 3FG (2 of 7) in that span, he’s gotten to the line 34 times. He still needs to convert at the line better, but he’s getting there. Now also the assists are pilling up, with 5 against LIU and 6 against Jacksonville State. He’s getting into space to make plays, and if the defense collapses he’s finding shooters.
Two of those shooters are Jacob Crews and Trent Pierce. Both were expected to contend for minutes this season and have seen their playing time yo-yo a bit, but mostly because their three pointers haven’t been falling. With Crews, it reached a point where it was affecting the rest of his play. He knew he was brought in this year to make shots and they weren’t falling. Before Caleb Grill went down it wasn’t as much of a big deal, but without Grill and without Crews, the three point attempts were limited overall for the Tigers. Mizzou attempted 9 threes against California, and then just 13 against kU. LIU opened up the gates a bit, but mostly because Pierce put up 11 3FGA, and Crews attempted 6. Then again against JSU, they combined for 13 attempts. That’s good when they’re going in!
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25795478/11_Jville_St_Player__.png)
Single game usage rates are always fun, especially when you hit ‘where is the hot hand’ mode like Mizzou was in the last 10 minutes From the 5:46 mark in the second half to the 2:39 mark Crews banged in three 3FG and Mitchell dropped in four points to take a one point deficit and expand their lead to 12. Mitchell and Crews accounted for 24.2 possessions, 37 points, zero turnovers and a +50% floor rate.
It wasn’t the cleanest game. But Mizzou got a solid result. Matt Harris likened it to the Tigers hammering out a term paper on hour before it was due and getting a C on it. This is not the process you wanted but the results could have been a lot worse considering the circumstances.
Eventually Mizzou shut the door. They didn’t leak in the final stages of the game and once they pulled ahead in before the final five minute mark, they didn’t let up. That’s good I suppose. BartTorvik.com gave the Tigers a game score of 60, their third worst performance on the season. Eastern Washington and Cal (hey the 1st half was really that bad) were the only games lower. At some point the Tigers are going to want to find a bit more consistency because things don’t get easy.
Up next is Illinois. 16 in Kenpom. Then a reprieve with Alabama State. Then you’re on the road against #1 Auburn (#2 in the AP Poll but tops in KenPom). If you haven’t been paying attention, the SEC is an absolute gauntlet this year.
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.
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.
0 Comments