Had designs of putting more thoughts in the longer thread, but this one kinda deserves it's own.
There were always going to be some tough moments turning the roster over. I think it was correct to turn it over. Questions of how it was done are fair.
I didn't expect to see 35 minutes of tough moments in a buy game. Spread was 11.5. Wrong team favored apparently.
Here's a checklist for a double digit loss against a low major:
1. Career night for some random kid who doesn't have 'em for a reason: 28 points on 6/8 3 point shooting. CHECK.
2. Come out without intensity allowing the opponent to build some confidence. Down 9 at half. CHECK.
3. Get out rebounded. 31-28. Ok, well Mizzou missed more shots. Outrebounded on the offensive glass too. CHECK.
4. Sloppy ballhandling. -4 in the category, 17 overall. CHECK.
5. Stagnant offense. Terrible spacing. Sub 1.00 ppp. CHECK.
6. Injury to your lone ballhandler. CHECK.
7. Get outshot by a wide margin.
17-32 vs. 20-37 from 2
11-23 vs. 4/14 from 3
13-20 vs. 14-24 from the line
CHECK
8. Have a poor defensive effort. Low major scores over 1.00 ppp. CHECK.
Basically everything you can do to lose these games, Mizzou (and to the credit that is deserved, UMKC) made those things happen.
I've made my thoughts pretty clear that I thought this team was light on the primary ballhandler situation. Perhaps Coleman playing all 40 helps. Perhaps Brookshire turns into that guy down the road. No matter. it was glaringly absent tonight. Not just in terms of turnovers, but getting competent offense triggered. The spacing was bad. The communication was bad. Everything was bad.
I remain firmly of the belief that this year, with it's rebuilding components is a year you look at as a whole and set down markers for progress towards where the program needs to be to get to the "next step." Martin has/had regained it's legitimacy as something more than a doormat. The question became whether something more could be achieved. All of that is still true.
But this game doesn't get forgotten. Crazy results happen in basketball. While a loss to UMKC isn't ever forgivable, with context, it can be a blip. Getting your hind parts handed to you for 40 minutes is something entirely different. That's going in the ledger too. If it happens to be a bad night and things otherwise progress. Fine. If it's a harbinger of things to come, Mizzou isn't in a place to let the program slip back into the depths. Martin's strength in my view was at it's floor, running a respectable program that competes night in and night out and achieves the historical norms of "modern" Mizzou basketball while taking a wager to see if he can be more.
If it's less than that...
Bad things man.
There were always going to be some tough moments turning the roster over. I think it was correct to turn it over. Questions of how it was done are fair.
I didn't expect to see 35 minutes of tough moments in a buy game. Spread was 11.5. Wrong team favored apparently.
Here's a checklist for a double digit loss against a low major:
1. Career night for some random kid who doesn't have 'em for a reason: 28 points on 6/8 3 point shooting. CHECK.
2. Come out without intensity allowing the opponent to build some confidence. Down 9 at half. CHECK.
3. Get out rebounded. 31-28. Ok, well Mizzou missed more shots. Outrebounded on the offensive glass too. CHECK.
4. Sloppy ballhandling. -4 in the category, 17 overall. CHECK.
5. Stagnant offense. Terrible spacing. Sub 1.00 ppp. CHECK.
6. Injury to your lone ballhandler. CHECK.
7. Get outshot by a wide margin.
17-32 vs. 20-37 from 2
11-23 vs. 4/14 from 3
13-20 vs. 14-24 from the line
CHECK
8. Have a poor defensive effort. Low major scores over 1.00 ppp. CHECK.
Basically everything you can do to lose these games, Mizzou (and to the credit that is deserved, UMKC) made those things happen.
I've made my thoughts pretty clear that I thought this team was light on the primary ballhandler situation. Perhaps Coleman playing all 40 helps. Perhaps Brookshire turns into that guy down the road. No matter. it was glaringly absent tonight. Not just in terms of turnovers, but getting competent offense triggered. The spacing was bad. The communication was bad. Everything was bad.
I remain firmly of the belief that this year, with it's rebuilding components is a year you look at as a whole and set down markers for progress towards where the program needs to be to get to the "next step." Martin has/had regained it's legitimacy as something more than a doormat. The question became whether something more could be achieved. All of that is still true.
But this game doesn't get forgotten. Crazy results happen in basketball. While a loss to UMKC isn't ever forgivable, with context, it can be a blip. Getting your hind parts handed to you for 40 minutes is something entirely different. That's going in the ledger too. If it happens to be a bad night and things otherwise progress. Fine. If it's a harbinger of things to come, Mizzou isn't in a place to let the program slip back into the depths. Martin's strength in my view was at it's floor, running a respectable program that competes night in and night out and achieves the historical norms of "modern" Mizzou basketball while taking a wager to see if he can be more.
If it's less than that...
Bad things man.
