As promised after the CSU beat down, a little recap/primer for where we're at.
1. Record. 8-4. Ehhh. That's how I'd describe it. First 5 were a decent result, next 3 were an abortion and last 4 were about as good as you can do. Make no mistake, the Charleston game is going to be a blemish all year long. Win at Kentucky? "Well, that kinda makes up for Charleston." Win the SEC? "Ha, Charleston beat the SEC champs." It is what it is. A bad loss. A really, really bad loss. The remainder of the non-con? 8-3 will play. But man, that's still there. As noted, it's becoming less and less uncommon for otherwise shocking upsets...(ratings are current KP)
#1 Duke loss to #145 Stephen F. Austin
#14 Kentucky loss to #204 Evansville
#45 UNC loss to #125 Wofford
#55 ISU loss to #301 Florida a&m
#102 South Carolina loss to #318 Stetson (8 days after winning at #30 UVA)
#15 Auburn win 70-69 over #184 South Alabama
#75 UGA win 80-77 over DII Chaminade
And an under the radar #84 Ole Miss loss 78-37 vs. #41 Oklahoma State (wtf?)
That's just a sampling. Not excusing it. It's horrendous and potentially season defining. But shit happens sometimes. We got a steamy load on our foreheads. The good news is, over the next four, we found the wet wipes.
2. Notable statistics (Mizzou/national rank)
Adjusted Defensive Efficiency: 22nd
eFG% defense: 3rd
3PT% defense: 4th
2PT% defense: 22nd
Steal%: 57th
Opp Turnover %: 33rd (low key one of our biggest areas of improvement; 193rd last year, 306th in 2018)
Def Rebound %: 43rd
2Pt%: 54th
FT%: 55th
So that all looks really good. Looks like a team that defends it, turns opponents over, grabs boards and makes hay inside the arc. So what's the problem?
Shocking, I know...
3PT%: 29.9% 288th (up ~2% after CSU)
Turnover Rate: 294th
----Opp Steal Rate: 118th (not really bad at all)
----Non Steal TO/Rate: 334th (good lord)
That's it. Aside from some inexplicable lapses defensively in our 3 game losing streak, that's the problem. All of it. Mizzou's offense is predicated on limiting possessions (251th in Offensive tempo) and jump shooting (90th in 3pta/fga). And they struggled mightily in each area for much of the non-conference.
The good news, in their last 4 they're 37-97 (38%) from 3, so hopefully that's starting to correct. Both Mark and Torrence had big individual outings that may skew the numbers, but they're also your two leading volume outside shooters, so if you want guys hitting...Additionally, outside of about a 5 minute stretch, the TO% has crept towards 20% which is more manageable. If they can do everything else as they've done it for most of the year, hit 33-35% of 3's and keep turnovers around 20%...they'll have a chance in 95% of remaining games.
3. The analytic rankings...
Pomeroy: 49th (started 38th, high 30, low 64th)
Torvik: 49th
Net: 52nd
BPI: 50th
ELO: 47th
It's good to see those numbers grouped tightly. Although different measurement systems, it indicates a relatively accurate view of where the team is at. You'd like it to be higher, obviously. But they're not incredibly far away from where they need to be. I recall the % of bid for P5 teams in the 41-45 of Pomeroy being around 80-85%. Top 40 and you're considered a significant snub.
The Net is a new invention, with only a year of data, so it's not real useful (and it's webpage is shockingly inaccurate as far as quad records go).
As best as I can tell, our standings there
Q1: 2-3
Q2: 0-0
Q3: 2-0
Q4: 4-1
It's odd seeing no Q2 games, but that's largely a function of playing no "name" teams at home. All 5 Q1 games were away from home. That will change quickly once we get into conference play (more below). I won't take the time to break down how many games we have remaining (in each quad) as I'm still leery of NET in general, especially at this point in time of the year, and there assuredly being a large deal of change going forward. Using Pomeroy's (A/B) system (similar to quads, but different), we have 8 "A" games remaining, 7 "B" games and 4 of neither. Suffice it to say, opportunities will be there.
4. Conference Preview. Pomeroy has his conference projections up, and they're rather...conservative for the league as a whole (National rank -- Predicted conference record (Mizzou home/away))
Kentucky: 14th -- 12-6 (Away)
Auburn: 15th -- 12-6 (Home)
Florida: 24th -- 11-7 (Home)
Arkansas: 31st -- 11-7 (Home/Away)
LSU: 38th -- 11-7 (Away)
Tennessee: 47th -- 10-8 (Home)
Mizzou: 49th -- 10-8 (----)
MSU: 54th -- 10-8 (Home/Away)
Alabama: 62nd -- 9-9 (Home/Away)
Georgia: 75th -- 8-10 (Home)
Mississippi: 84th -- 7-11 (Home/Away)
USC: 102nd -- 7-11 (Away)
Vandy: 131st -- 5-13 (Away)
aTm: 159th -- 4-14 (Home/Away)
The good news: Of the other 9 teams projected to finish within 4 games of first, Mizzou has 7 of those 11 games at home. The only two such opponents that don't visit Mizzou Arena are Kentucky and LSU. Now, that does mean we play the projected bottom 4 away from home 4 of 6 times, meaning fewer "layups" and more potential for a bad loss...but, it also helps in that those being road games will generally bump up the Quad rating.
The bad news: I'm not sure who Cuonzo pissed off, but the start of league play each year is not for the faint of heart. In conference games alone, 3 of our toughest 5 games come within the first 5 games of league play. Not included in that figure are 2 of our 4 toughest home games. With a breath of air against aTm, Mizzou heads back on the road for arguably the toughest game remaining against WVU. We weren't as quality of a team a year ago at this point, but our 1-6 start to league play killed any chance of making a season out of it (and of course, Mark's injury). A lofty goal for the next 7 games should be 4-3. Do that and you're in great shape. 3-4 doesn't kill you, but creates work. Any worse, and we're hurting. The last 12 offer us being favorites in 8, and 1 point losses projected in 2 more. So there's a chance to make up ground. You just can't dig a huge hole...again.
5. Individual Numbers. My preferred metric for individual analysis is win shares. Even better, when it's analyzed in per 40 minute increments to control for time on the court. It's not perfect, but it's really solid as it takes individual offense and defense into account. There are some outliers, of course. For reference, .100 is considered replacement level, or average. .150 is good, .200 is very good. The top 10 in all of college this year rate between .290 and .349. There's also a heavy variance for losing teams (us last year) to have lower ratings. Here are Mizzou's numbers of guys with 50+ minutes played (with last year in parentheses)
Dru Smith: .249 (---)
Mark Smith: .208 (.157; .190 before injury)
Nikko: .185 (.098)
Tilmon: .181 (.122)
Pickett: .166 (.050)
Pinson: .162 (.085)
Mitchell Smith: .147 (.091)
Brown: .141 (---)
Jackson: .069 (---)
Watson: .064 (.072)
This shakes out the way you'd expect. Mark and Dru are the two best performers thus far. Both Nikko and Tilmon are effective when they're on the court, but both suffer from not being on the court for different reasons. Watson is obviously the guy you need to get going. I'm not going to pin our hopes on him by any means, but he's been underperforming. He's also the guy that outside of maybe Mark, that can absolutely carry a team when he gets hot. He did it for about 20 minutes against a horrid team, and for about 5 in KC (I honestly forget which game; which I think is good for my mental health). You get Torrence going, get Tilmon on the floor more and keep everything else the same, and that's a group that could do some damage.
I'll conclude with this, just because...
1. Record. 8-4. Ehhh. That's how I'd describe it. First 5 were a decent result, next 3 were an abortion and last 4 were about as good as you can do. Make no mistake, the Charleston game is going to be a blemish all year long. Win at Kentucky? "Well, that kinda makes up for Charleston." Win the SEC? "Ha, Charleston beat the SEC champs." It is what it is. A bad loss. A really, really bad loss. The remainder of the non-con? 8-3 will play. But man, that's still there. As noted, it's becoming less and less uncommon for otherwise shocking upsets...(ratings are current KP)
#1 Duke loss to #145 Stephen F. Austin
#14 Kentucky loss to #204 Evansville
#45 UNC loss to #125 Wofford
#55 ISU loss to #301 Florida a&m
#102 South Carolina loss to #318 Stetson (8 days after winning at #30 UVA)
#15 Auburn win 70-69 over #184 South Alabama
#75 UGA win 80-77 over DII Chaminade
And an under the radar #84 Ole Miss loss 78-37 vs. #41 Oklahoma State (wtf?)
That's just a sampling. Not excusing it. It's horrendous and potentially season defining. But shit happens sometimes. We got a steamy load on our foreheads. The good news is, over the next four, we found the wet wipes.
2. Notable statistics (Mizzou/national rank)
Adjusted Defensive Efficiency: 22nd
eFG% defense: 3rd
3PT% defense: 4th
2PT% defense: 22nd
Steal%: 57th
Opp Turnover %: 33rd (low key one of our biggest areas of improvement; 193rd last year, 306th in 2018)
Def Rebound %: 43rd
2Pt%: 54th
FT%: 55th
So that all looks really good. Looks like a team that defends it, turns opponents over, grabs boards and makes hay inside the arc. So what's the problem?
Shocking, I know...
3PT%: 29.9% 288th (up ~2% after CSU)
Turnover Rate: 294th
----Opp Steal Rate: 118th (not really bad at all)
----Non Steal TO/Rate: 334th (good lord)
That's it. Aside from some inexplicable lapses defensively in our 3 game losing streak, that's the problem. All of it. Mizzou's offense is predicated on limiting possessions (251th in Offensive tempo) and jump shooting (90th in 3pta/fga). And they struggled mightily in each area for much of the non-conference.
The good news, in their last 4 they're 37-97 (38%) from 3, so hopefully that's starting to correct. Both Mark and Torrence had big individual outings that may skew the numbers, but they're also your two leading volume outside shooters, so if you want guys hitting...Additionally, outside of about a 5 minute stretch, the TO% has crept towards 20% which is more manageable. If they can do everything else as they've done it for most of the year, hit 33-35% of 3's and keep turnovers around 20%...they'll have a chance in 95% of remaining games.
3. The analytic rankings...
Pomeroy: 49th (started 38th, high 30, low 64th)
Torvik: 49th
Net: 52nd
BPI: 50th
ELO: 47th
It's good to see those numbers grouped tightly. Although different measurement systems, it indicates a relatively accurate view of where the team is at. You'd like it to be higher, obviously. But they're not incredibly far away from where they need to be. I recall the % of bid for P5 teams in the 41-45 of Pomeroy being around 80-85%. Top 40 and you're considered a significant snub.
The Net is a new invention, with only a year of data, so it's not real useful (and it's webpage is shockingly inaccurate as far as quad records go).
As best as I can tell, our standings there
Q1: 2-3
Q2: 0-0
Q3: 2-0
Q4: 4-1
It's odd seeing no Q2 games, but that's largely a function of playing no "name" teams at home. All 5 Q1 games were away from home. That will change quickly once we get into conference play (more below). I won't take the time to break down how many games we have remaining (in each quad) as I'm still leery of NET in general, especially at this point in time of the year, and there assuredly being a large deal of change going forward. Using Pomeroy's (A/B) system (similar to quads, but different), we have 8 "A" games remaining, 7 "B" games and 4 of neither. Suffice it to say, opportunities will be there.
4. Conference Preview. Pomeroy has his conference projections up, and they're rather...conservative for the league as a whole (National rank -- Predicted conference record (Mizzou home/away))
Kentucky: 14th -- 12-6 (Away)
Auburn: 15th -- 12-6 (Home)
Florida: 24th -- 11-7 (Home)
Arkansas: 31st -- 11-7 (Home/Away)
LSU: 38th -- 11-7 (Away)
Tennessee: 47th -- 10-8 (Home)
Mizzou: 49th -- 10-8 (----)
MSU: 54th -- 10-8 (Home/Away)
Alabama: 62nd -- 9-9 (Home/Away)
Georgia: 75th -- 8-10 (Home)
Mississippi: 84th -- 7-11 (Home/Away)
USC: 102nd -- 7-11 (Away)
Vandy: 131st -- 5-13 (Away)
aTm: 159th -- 4-14 (Home/Away)
The good news: Of the other 9 teams projected to finish within 4 games of first, Mizzou has 7 of those 11 games at home. The only two such opponents that don't visit Mizzou Arena are Kentucky and LSU. Now, that does mean we play the projected bottom 4 away from home 4 of 6 times, meaning fewer "layups" and more potential for a bad loss...but, it also helps in that those being road games will generally bump up the Quad rating.
The bad news: I'm not sure who Cuonzo pissed off, but the start of league play each year is not for the faint of heart. In conference games alone, 3 of our toughest 5 games come within the first 5 games of league play. Not included in that figure are 2 of our 4 toughest home games. With a breath of air against aTm, Mizzou heads back on the road for arguably the toughest game remaining against WVU. We weren't as quality of a team a year ago at this point, but our 1-6 start to league play killed any chance of making a season out of it (and of course, Mark's injury). A lofty goal for the next 7 games should be 4-3. Do that and you're in great shape. 3-4 doesn't kill you, but creates work. Any worse, and we're hurting. The last 12 offer us being favorites in 8, and 1 point losses projected in 2 more. So there's a chance to make up ground. You just can't dig a huge hole...again.
5. Individual Numbers. My preferred metric for individual analysis is win shares. Even better, when it's analyzed in per 40 minute increments to control for time on the court. It's not perfect, but it's really solid as it takes individual offense and defense into account. There are some outliers, of course. For reference, .100 is considered replacement level, or average. .150 is good, .200 is very good. The top 10 in all of college this year rate between .290 and .349. There's also a heavy variance for losing teams (us last year) to have lower ratings. Here are Mizzou's numbers of guys with 50+ minutes played (with last year in parentheses)
Dru Smith: .249 (---)
Mark Smith: .208 (.157; .190 before injury)
Nikko: .185 (.098)
Tilmon: .181 (.122)
Pickett: .166 (.050)
Pinson: .162 (.085)
Mitchell Smith: .147 (.091)
Brown: .141 (---)
Jackson: .069 (---)
Watson: .064 (.072)
This shakes out the way you'd expect. Mark and Dru are the two best performers thus far. Both Nikko and Tilmon are effective when they're on the court, but both suffer from not being on the court for different reasons. Watson is obviously the guy you need to get going. I'm not going to pin our hopes on him by any means, but he's been underperforming. He's also the guy that outside of maybe Mark, that can absolutely carry a team when he gets hot. He did it for about 20 minutes against a horrid team, and for about 5 in KC (I honestly forget which game; which I think is good for my mental health). You get Torrence going, get Tilmon on the floor more and keep everything else the same, and that's a group that could do some damage.
I'll conclude with this, just because...
