Study Hall: Mizzou 98, California 93

Dec 5, 2024 | Uncategorized

Written By

study hall 2022

Mizzou found out, and then stopped f***ing around.

It’s been a while since the urge has come over me to turn the television off when watching a Mizzou game. But with a few minutes to go in the first half, I exited out of the ESPN app, and just left the room for a bit. I’ve watched my fair share of bad basketball. I sat through the entirety of the Kim Anderson tenure, I watched the worst of Cuonzo Martin, and I tuned in for each disappointing loss last season. I can’t recall ever being more bothered by a run made by another team the way I was when Cal ripped off 17 straight points.

I rage quit. And that’s something I don’t really do, because sports are meant to be a fun distraction and I generally treat them as such.

But man, maybe it was the entire month of November I spent watching good fun basketball that other teams were partaking in while Missouri was working through kinks against the dregs of Division 1 basketball. Finally someone you can matchup with again, even if it’s someone you should beat, per the analytics… and to just take the floor and get wiped out in four minutes of non-action.

I knew, even with that incredibly frustrating four minutes, that I would tune back in at the start of the second half. But it felt nice to just have a clean break.

Apparently Dennis Gates thought similarly, because a cleansed and clear-eyed Missouri basketball team emerged from the tunnel. It took four minutes to get behind by 16, and it took the Tigers 6 minutes to get it all back. A 12-1 run to open the half set the tone that things were going to be different in the second half. And they were. The lineups got simpler, the offensive approach was concentrated, and then Mizzou was able to fully swing the door.

They were never able to fully put Cal away, but once the Tigers got the lead they were good.

Team Stats

2025 study hall california

The rebounding… okay I know, it’s been an issue under Gates. But hear me out… Mizzou played lethargic and got beat in the first half… and then in the second half they didn’t miss any shots. 2 offensive rebounds in the second half sounds bad, but while the Tigers missed 9 FTs only 4 of those could be rebounded. Then they only missed 4 other shots from the floor. So they got 25% of their misses in the second half!

  • The clear advantage offensively was the volume and percentage on 2FG: The Tigers weren’t having a great night shooting from beyond the arc, they only attempted 9 outside shots. But attempted 6 more 2s and made 11 more 2s than Cal.
  • Cal had 13 points off 7 Mizzou turnovers in the first half: including 5 in the final 6 minutes, helping the Bears along on their run. The Tigers shut that spigot off in the second half. They gave up just 6 points off 4 turnovers, and zero in the first 10 minutes when they got back into the game.
  • I’m a little worried about the defense: they have moments where they click, and certain lineups fair better than others. But put simply 1.22 points per possession is far too high. Even in the improved second half they allowed 1.167 ppp and 42 points. Mizzou’s offense was scorching hot and it was still a struggle to put Cal away.

Player Stats

Your Trifecta: Anthony Robinson II, Mark Mitchell, Tamar Bates

2025 study hall california

On the season: Mark Mitchell 12, Anthony Robinson II 10, Tamar Bates 9, Caleb Grill 7, Marques Warrick 4, Tony Perkins 3, Trent Pierce 3, Aidan Shaw 1

Coming out party for Anthony Robinson! I guess he’s trying to put everyone on notice here. An adjusted game score of 34.35 is obscene. A usage rate in the low 30s with an ORtg over 160 and a floor rate of 64%… all absurd. Robinson breaking out is a notch in the belt for the staff and their development plan. He didn’t attempt a 3, which is almost unheard of for a guard this day and age. And while Ant hasn’t quite taken the step of being a knockdown shooter (he’s still just 3-9 on the year), he’s shown immeasurable growth in a lot of other areas, including his finishing package.

I have to feel like if Mark Mitchell could figure out his free throws he could really take off. He’s down to 60% on the season, and he’s just leaving a lot of points on the floor. Maybe he’s not the fully formed playmaker at the four we were hoping he could become, but he’s still proven valuable and versatile.

Tamar Bates played about as well as he’s played all year aside from fouling a bit too much, and a couple too many turnovers. He’s also only 2 of his last 13 from three, but his efficiency hasn’t fallen off a bit because he’s taking such good shots from 2FG.

Peyton Marshall nearly got into the GS/Min trifecta with his stellar play. Marshall is still a work in progress and, whew, I wish he could make free throws. But he’s got so much skill with the ball, and he looks like a natural as a feeder at the high post. Josh Gray has been exactly who Mizzou has needed at the position, but it would be really helpful if Marshall stepped into be a quality understudy you could rely on.

2025 study hall california

The rest of the team was a mixed bag, but it seems like Marques Warrick is really figuring things out. It was nice to see Tony Perkins have some moments, even if (again) the turnovers were a little high.

I’m beginning to wonder how much more rope the staff are planning to give Jacob Crews. Of all the stats, I don’t think plus-minus is an accurate representation of an individual’s play. There are too many factors that go into any one players plus-minus. But -18 in 6 minutes of play is hard to ignore. His main attraction to the lineup is his shooting, and he’s not doing that… only hitting 21.7% of his three point looks. I think Crews makes a lot of sense in the abstract, a 6’8 wing who can shoot it and rebounds well. But he’s not come to fruition in reality at this point.

Meanwhile, trying to get Crews going is taking minutes away from guys who are impacting the game. Trent Pierce is having similar struggles in the making threes department, but he’s doing most everything else well. Including finishing at the rim.

Up next… kansas.


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.

You Might Also Like

Injuries, obstacles mounting for Mizzou Wrestling

Injuries, obstacles mounting for Mizzou Wrestling

Cal Tobias/Rock M Nation The Tigers are currently without their three expected key contributors, two gone for the rest of the season For the second straight year, Mizzou Wrestling has begun its season with high hopes and expectations before seeing the year take a...

read more
Commute: Who is declaring for the NFL draft?

Commute: Who is declaring for the NFL draft?

The Morning Commute for Friday, January 3rd, 2024. Welcome to the Morning Commute We all need our moment, right? That’s the benefit of social media, it allows every one to play the title role in their own script. With that said I’m not sure I fully understand...

read more
Defending champs blow out Mizzou WBB

Defending champs blow out Mizzou WBB

Karen Steger Action Photography Tigers fall to South Carolina 83-52 Mizzou WBB (11-5, 0-1 SEC) competed early on with No. 2 South Carolina (13-1, 1-0 SEC), but faltered in the second half as the talent discrepancy showed. South Carolina ended the first quarter ahead...

read more

0 Comments