Mizzou Basketball Stats, Analysis, Reaction: Study Hall vs South Carolina

If you didn’t believe me when I said that this year would produce some strange results, last night probably provided the evidence you needed to line up a little.

Alabama beat LSU by about 40 points at LSU, Ole Miss defeated the state of Mississippi on the road, Florida defeated Tennessee at home … the only outlier? Missouri with a very pedestrian 11 point home win over South Carolina. Mizzou’s KenPom ranking did not change after the game. Although the projected 5-point win turns into an 11-point win, the rest of the numbers said it was quite expected.

So now, in the last two games, Mizzou has dared … to perform as expected!

After the COVID break, the Tigers took the time to restart a bit and we see more of the team we saw earlier in the year. With only a few minor variations.

• The pace was fast, but it still favored Missouri: For the most part, the Tigers made South Carolina carry out its attack. Gamecocks play with great pace, but their season has left them in a strange place where they still struggle at times to consistently score the ball.
• Eehhhhhh, turnovers: It is disappointing to see so many changes again, but the positive result is that much of this can be contributed to a certain point guard who seems to be in a state of fear of two games.
• The four factors are hilarious and strange: Missouri’s eFG% was only the second time the Tigers reached 60% eFG this season (the other was against Oral Roberts), they more than doubled their free throw attempts to FGA, drastically lost their turnover rate and even lost the battle rebound.
• But the good news about the recovery: Mizzou gave Justin Minaya six offensive rebounds, three for the scarily long and athletic Keyshawn Bryant (seriously, his wingspan … has to be 2.7 meters) and FOUR team offensive rebounds. There were several times when the Tigers simply lost the rebound when they held it. Such strange things?

Your Trifecta: Tilly, Dru, Mark

The intriguing aspect of this team so far is that we don’t seem to see them clicking on all cylinders. At different times, we had other players playing well. Missouri needs good games from at least some guys and even a few more, and that is enough to defeat most teams (as long as your defense works).

Last night, it was Jeremiah Tilmon. He was fantastic. In six previous games in Missouri, Jeremiah Tilmon has been the KenPom MVP four times. Wasn’t he at the games? Both games in which he failed were defeats for UT and MSU. He’s been as dominant as we all wanted Tilmon to be dominant. And if anything, he has almost been very selfless. There were several items where Tilmon looked clean and beautiful, but he threw the ball instead. It is very good to see the evolution of Jeremiah Tilmon.

And I’m just going to say this:

It looks like Mark Smith was again the guy we wanted to see after a few games off, after a six-game skid in which he went five to 25 off the 3-point line. It wasn’t even a sizzling performance, but Smith got it 3 in 7 from the bottom (4 in 8 if you include what he buried after the shot clock expired), but it was enough to make you feel better about Mark and his ability to escape a very difficult slide.

Two challenging games for Xavier Pinson, but X’s next good game against South Carolina will be the first. It’s strange, but something about Gamecocks makes the Tigers guard combo a little melted. Missouri is arguably a better team when Pinson is doing well, but they also have enough in other positions to compensate a little for being limited in his role. And in the last two games, his game has left him on the bench for longer than on the floor. Nine turnovers will do that.

But when you have everyone taking offense offensively, it’s not a big deal that Pinson isn’t doing well. He’s a guy who uses a lot, so when use is not going well (25% + and only 15% of the minimum fee), it is better to resort to plan B.

No Parker Braun, but it looks like Cuonzo has his eight-man rotation planned, and Parker and Torrence Watson are outside of it. Then, depending on the result, he gives Torrence or Parker the minutes of the ninth man.

Next? Tennessee, coming out of a beating in Florida. This should be fun.

---

Percentage of actual shot (TS%): Quite simply, this calculates a player’s shot percentage, 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. This is basically what TS% is. A measure of scoring efficiency based on the number of points scored on the number of goods on which they attempted to score, more here.

Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%): This is similar to TS%, but takes more into account the 3-point shot. The formula is FGM + (0.5 * 3PM) / FGA

So, think of TS% as scoring efficiency and eFG% as shooting efficiency, more here.

Expected offensive recoveries: Measured based on the average rebounds a college basketball team gets both on defense and offensive. This takes the total number of missed shots (or shots available to hit) and divides them by the number of offensive rebounds and compares them with the statistical average.

Settings: A takeoff of the game’s score metric (definition on here) accepted by many basketball nerds. It takes into account points, assists, rebounds (offensive and defensive), steals, blocks, deviations and fouls to determine an individual’s “score” for a given game. The “adjustment” in the game’s adjusted score is simply to match the total game score to the total points scored in the game, thus redistributing the game’s scored points to those who had the greatest impact in the game itself, rather than just how many balls one player placed in a basket.

Offensive evaluation (ORtg): Similar to the game’s adjusted score, but it shows how many points per possession a player would score if he averaged more than 100 possessions.

Use%: This “estimates the% of the team’s possessions that a player consumes while on the ground” (via sports-reference.com/cbb) The use of these possessions is determined through a formula using pitches and free-throw attempts, offensive rebounds, assists and turns. The higher the number, the more prevalent is the player (good or bad) in a team’s offensive result.

Floor%: By sports-reference.com/cbb: Floor% answers the question, “When a player uses a ball possession, how likely is it that his team will score at least 1 point?”. The higher the% of the floor, the more often the team is likely to score when a particular player is involved.

Touch / possession: Using throw-in attempts, free-throw attempts, assists and turns, touch attempt to estimate “the number of times a player has touched the ball in an attack position on the floor.” Take the ring estimate and divide it by the estimated number of possessions a player has on the court, and you will have a rough idea of ​​how many times a player has touched the ball in a given possession. For shipowners, you will see the number in the 3-4 range. To shoot guards and wards, 2-3. For an offensively limited center, 1.30. You got the idea.

Anyway, using the number of strokes, we can estimate the percentage of time that a player “in attack position” spends, kicks, turns the ball or suffers a foul.