With the first publicly consumable basketball contest tipping off tomorrow night, what better time than the present to look at what I find to be the big keys to the season.
1. Health. It's sad that it has to be listed number 1, but it is. At various points in the season a year ago, we missed time from: Jontay, Mark Smith, Tilmon, Pickett and Santos. Additionally, you had Dru Smith healthy, but unavailable. Some of those were missed more than others. Obviously Jontay is gone, but both Mark and Dru have missed significant periods of time due to injury within the last 2 years. The others seemed to be non-recurring issues. Having players, and in particular starters, not miss significant periods of time will be very important. We all know that.
2. Defense. If there's one thing you should feel fairly confident in, it's that Cuonzo's Martin's teams are going to compete on the defensive end. Consider his adjusted efficiency ranks on that end (understand that this is possession oriented, so pace is almost completely irrelevant):
2019: 51st
2018: 43rd
2017: 14th
2016: 19th
2015: 79th
2014: 19th
You get the point. I feel that this team has the depth and ability to be a top 25-30 defensive group. Pomeroy projects them at #21. I don't think defense will take them from 15 to 25 wins alone, because it was already a solid defensive group a year ago. But it must remain so, or improve incrementally, if we're going to be legitimate NCAA candidates.
3. Rebounding. I could nearly copy and pasted the "defense" section of this post, but the same applies. Martin's teams are generally extremely stout on the defensive glass when looking at rebound rate:
2019: 65th
2018: 137th
2017: 7th
2016: 20th
2015: 8th
2014: 19th
This figure has actually dipped a bit while at Mizzou, although they...rebounded...nicely a year ago. We're a deeper, more athletic team than we were a year ago. There's no good reason why they shouldn't be a top 50 club in this category. And pointing out, Mark Smith was actually our best defensive rebounder a year ago. Having a guard who can clean the glass gives you a lot more versatility in offensive lineups.
4. Turnovers. Yes, they've been quite the issue over the last two years. Ranking 318th nationally in turnover rate in 2019 was unsightly. Doing so after ranking 313th the year before is ghastly. I'm strictly of the opinion that this is a personnel issue in this case. And I say that for two reasons. First, again going to the numbers, Martin's squads TO% rate by year
2019: 318th
2018: 313th
2017: 196th
2016: 145th
2015: 41st
2014: 71st
There's not a real strong correlation there between teams he's coached and poor turnover rates. If Martin is to shoulder the blame, I believe a part of that comes in not having a quality lead guard on either of the past two Mizzou teams. The saying that a good pg is "the straw that stirs the drink," may be a little silly, but is accurate. Mizzou has had, and does have, offensive pieces that are good at what they do. What they haven't had, is someone that makes them better. Kash and Geist were very good players at scoring the ball. They also didn't turn it over much themselves. But what they were subpar at, was creating easy opportunities for their teammate, either by making a play or by executing the set. This led to slow reversals, late entries, poorly timed screens, indecision on perimeter passing etc. And that led to turnovers. Pinson is a talented guard, but the way he played a year ago was more akin to stirring a drink with a boat oar. Way too much for what was needed. What was worse is that Mizzou was not a high risk taking passing team. It's one thing to be missing on home run passes when you also hit them. It's entirely another to be a low risk taking squad, and still turning the ball over every 5 times down the court.
And I'll leave you with this as evidence...Pomeroy also has began splitting turnovers into "steals" and "unforced" turnovers. The Tigers ranked 333rd in the unforced variety, while "only" 204th in steals allowed. While the latter number isn't great, Michigan State ranked 208th and Texas Tech 216th. So it's not really a back breaker. What does qualify, is sloppy play under little/no pressure. Mizzou was an NIT team a year ago, an outside shot at a bubble team, had they not been bad in this precise situation.
Hopefully, a year under the freshmen's belt, a steadying presence at PG and an increased focus on these issues will lead to some improvement.
5. Outside Shooting. No matter the lack of ability to drive the ball and score, quality 3 point shooting teams can, and will win basketball games. They become even better with success at the paint, but the 3 point line is no longer the great equalizer, it's the great maximizer now. Mizzou will play 6 players who have attempted a three point basket at the D-I (dismissing Tilmon's 1 heave attempt), and bring in 3 more freshmen who at least have the potential of being able to make the shot. When looking at those 6 players, and their last (or only) season played, they collectively shot 40.2%. Pretty good, right? Even better when you consider that would've ranked 4th nationally a year ago. No other P5 team shot over 39.5%. In fact, only 3 such P5 teams shot over 38%. Now, will they hit at that rate? I'd say it's doubtful. But what isn't in doubt is that Mizzou could have as many as 8-9 options that hit 30% or better. Better yet, it could be stretched over 4-5 spots on the floor. If that manifests, it becomes a dangerous offense, one that it is hard to guard and one that can open up lanes for scoring in different ways.
That's it. Those are my 5 keys.
There are other areas that are certainly important...returning the assist rate to 2018 levels, Tilmon's foul trouble, getting to the charity stripe, sorting out depth issues/rotations, what style of offense we're running, what style defense we're playing etc. All worthy of discussion. A lot of that has varied from year to year, game to game...some of it's unknowable until we see it.
But in my opinion, if we get favorable returns in those 5 areas,
1. Health. It's sad that it has to be listed number 1, but it is. At various points in the season a year ago, we missed time from: Jontay, Mark Smith, Tilmon, Pickett and Santos. Additionally, you had Dru Smith healthy, but unavailable. Some of those were missed more than others. Obviously Jontay is gone, but both Mark and Dru have missed significant periods of time due to injury within the last 2 years. The others seemed to be non-recurring issues. Having players, and in particular starters, not miss significant periods of time will be very important. We all know that.
2. Defense. If there's one thing you should feel fairly confident in, it's that Cuonzo's Martin's teams are going to compete on the defensive end. Consider his adjusted efficiency ranks on that end (understand that this is possession oriented, so pace is almost completely irrelevant):
2019: 51st
2018: 43rd
2017: 14th
2016: 19th
2015: 79th
2014: 19th
You get the point. I feel that this team has the depth and ability to be a top 25-30 defensive group. Pomeroy projects them at #21. I don't think defense will take them from 15 to 25 wins alone, because it was already a solid defensive group a year ago. But it must remain so, or improve incrementally, if we're going to be legitimate NCAA candidates.
3. Rebounding. I could nearly copy and pasted the "defense" section of this post, but the same applies. Martin's teams are generally extremely stout on the defensive glass when looking at rebound rate:
2019: 65th
2018: 137th
2017: 7th
2016: 20th
2015: 8th
2014: 19th
This figure has actually dipped a bit while at Mizzou, although they...rebounded...nicely a year ago. We're a deeper, more athletic team than we were a year ago. There's no good reason why they shouldn't be a top 50 club in this category. And pointing out, Mark Smith was actually our best defensive rebounder a year ago. Having a guard who can clean the glass gives you a lot more versatility in offensive lineups.
4. Turnovers. Yes, they've been quite the issue over the last two years. Ranking 318th nationally in turnover rate in 2019 was unsightly. Doing so after ranking 313th the year before is ghastly. I'm strictly of the opinion that this is a personnel issue in this case. And I say that for two reasons. First, again going to the numbers, Martin's squads TO% rate by year
2019: 318th
2018: 313th
2017: 196th
2016: 145th
2015: 41st
2014: 71st
There's not a real strong correlation there between teams he's coached and poor turnover rates. If Martin is to shoulder the blame, I believe a part of that comes in not having a quality lead guard on either of the past two Mizzou teams. The saying that a good pg is "the straw that stirs the drink," may be a little silly, but is accurate. Mizzou has had, and does have, offensive pieces that are good at what they do. What they haven't had, is someone that makes them better. Kash and Geist were very good players at scoring the ball. They also didn't turn it over much themselves. But what they were subpar at, was creating easy opportunities for their teammate, either by making a play or by executing the set. This led to slow reversals, late entries, poorly timed screens, indecision on perimeter passing etc. And that led to turnovers. Pinson is a talented guard, but the way he played a year ago was more akin to stirring a drink with a boat oar. Way too much for what was needed. What was worse is that Mizzou was not a high risk taking passing team. It's one thing to be missing on home run passes when you also hit them. It's entirely another to be a low risk taking squad, and still turning the ball over every 5 times down the court.
And I'll leave you with this as evidence...Pomeroy also has began splitting turnovers into "steals" and "unforced" turnovers. The Tigers ranked 333rd in the unforced variety, while "only" 204th in steals allowed. While the latter number isn't great, Michigan State ranked 208th and Texas Tech 216th. So it's not really a back breaker. What does qualify, is sloppy play under little/no pressure. Mizzou was an NIT team a year ago, an outside shot at a bubble team, had they not been bad in this precise situation.
Hopefully, a year under the freshmen's belt, a steadying presence at PG and an increased focus on these issues will lead to some improvement.
5. Outside Shooting. No matter the lack of ability to drive the ball and score, quality 3 point shooting teams can, and will win basketball games. They become even better with success at the paint, but the 3 point line is no longer the great equalizer, it's the great maximizer now. Mizzou will play 6 players who have attempted a three point basket at the D-I (dismissing Tilmon's 1 heave attempt), and bring in 3 more freshmen who at least have the potential of being able to make the shot. When looking at those 6 players, and their last (or only) season played, they collectively shot 40.2%. Pretty good, right? Even better when you consider that would've ranked 4th nationally a year ago. No other P5 team shot over 39.5%. In fact, only 3 such P5 teams shot over 38%. Now, will they hit at that rate? I'd say it's doubtful. But what isn't in doubt is that Mizzou could have as many as 8-9 options that hit 30% or better. Better yet, it could be stretched over 4-5 spots on the floor. If that manifests, it becomes a dangerous offense, one that it is hard to guard and one that can open up lanes for scoring in different ways.
That's it. Those are my 5 keys.
There are other areas that are certainly important...returning the assist rate to 2018 levels, Tilmon's foul trouble, getting to the charity stripe, sorting out depth issues/rotations, what style of offense we're running, what style defense we're playing etc. All worthy of discussion. A lot of that has varied from year to year, game to game...some of it's unknowable until we see it.
But in my opinion, if we get favorable returns in those 5 areas,
