SB Nation - Miguel Paul

Study Hall: Mizzou vs Fairleigh Dickinson

Bill C. — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:00:27 -0000

by L.G. Patterson - AP

6 days ago: Missouri head coach Mike Anderson, right, tries to quiet the crowd as he sits next to assistant coach Matt Zimmerman, left, after it was announced that today was Anderson's 50th birthday during the second half of a NCAA college basketball game against Fairleigh Dickinson Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009, in Columbia, Mo. Missouri won the game 87-36. (AP Photo/L.G. Patterson)

View full size photo »

So apparently my 90-48 prediction was a bit too pessimistic...

Mizzou 87, Fairleigh Dickinson 36

NCAA Basketball Stats

	Mizzou	FDU
Points Per Minute	2.18	0.90
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.18	0.49
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.23	0.64
2-PT FG%	47.7%	26.5%
3-PT FG%	44.4%	13.6%
FT%	75.0%	56.3%
True Shooting %	57.0%	28.6%

	Mizzou	FDU
Assists	23	7
Steals	18	7
Turnovers	14	26
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	2.93	0.54

	Mizzou	FDU
Expected Offensive Rebounds	14	17
Offensive Rebounds	15	15
Difference	+1	-2

Pretty much total domination.

Not really sure what to say about this one. Just about every category saw domination -- shooting, ball-handling, etc. And Mizzou even won the rebounding battle! Barely!

Rebounding.

We'll talk about this a bit in the player stats after the jump, but after an iffy first half of rebounding, Mizzou got its act together, dominating the second half, then getting a nice boost from Tyler Stone and John Underwood, who combined for 9 points and 11 rebounds in 19 minutes. This is still clearly the biggest concern the team has (followed closely by the halfcourt offense that ensues if Mizzou isn't forcing 26 turnovers). But it's probably not to read too much, good or bad, into what unfolds during a 50-point win.

Player stats after the jump.

Player Stats

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Kim English	16.0	1.00	16 Min, 20 Pts (7-for-14 FG, 4-for-9 3PT), 4 Stl, 3 Reb, 2 Ast
Laurence Bowers	12.2	0.68	18 Min, 12 Pts (6-for-8 FG), 5 Reb (3 Off), 2 Ast
Zaire Taylor	10.8	0.60	18 Min, 7 Pts (2-for-6 FG), 7 Stl, 3 Reb, 2 Ast
Michael Dixon	9.8	0.49	20 Min, 10 Pts (4-for-7 FG, 2-for-3 3PT), 5 Ast, 3 Reb
Marcus Denmon	7.1	0.39	18 Min, 9 Pts (3-for-7 FG, 3-for-6 3PT), 2 Reb, 2 Ast
Justin Safford	6.6	0.37	18 Min, 4 Pts (2-for-3 FG), 4 Ast, 3 Reb, 2 Blk
Miguel Paul	6.2	0.41	15 Min, 7 Pts (3-for-5 FG), 2 Ast
Tyler Stone	5.7	0.63	9 Min, 6 Pts (3-for-4 FG), 4 Reb
J.T. Tiller	4.5	0.28	16 Min, 5 Pts (2-for-4 FG), 2 Reb
John Underwood	3.2	0.32	10 Min, 3 Pts (0-for-3 FG), 7 Reb (3 Off)
Keith Ramsey	2.6	0.13	20 Min, 2 Pts (0-for-3 FG), 6 Reb
Steve Moore	2.4	0.15	16 Min, 2 Pts (1-for-3 FG), 3 Blk, 2 Reb, 2 Stl
Jarrett Sutton	-2.7	-0.45	6 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-4 FG)

* AdjGS = a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It does the same thing my previous measure of choice did (it takes points, assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls into account to determine an individual's "score" for a given game), only the formula is more used and accepted. 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.

That's right, Zaire Taylor yoinked seven steals in 18 minutes. Not sure I've ever seen that.
Actually, instead of going too deep into the bullet points, let's revisit the player-by-player challenges that I issued during the Oral Roberts wrap-up.

The Challenge

As a reminder, I took a look at each Mizzou player and what I needed to see from them during these cupcake games to suggest that team improvement might be on the horizon during Big 12 play.

Zaire Taylor: Shots Per Minute

Versus FDU: 0.33 Shots Per Minute.

Not bad, especially considering he was a little hobbled. He was averaging only 0.22 per minute against "real" opponents, and while FDU certainly doesn't qualify as a real opponent, he still shot at a 50% higher frequency, which is good. Again, lacking one more natural scorer, we have to fill in the gaps with our two best scorers (not named Kim English), Taylor and Laurence Bowers. This was a good start. Somewhere in the 0.30-0.35 range for Taylor suggests that he is shooting more and still focusing primarily on distributing the ball.

J.T. Tiller: Steals Per Minute

Versus FDU 0.06 Steals Per Minute.

Eh. Jesus Tyrannosaurus pretty much took this game off, at least in terms of what shows up in the box score.

Kim English: Defensive Rebounds Per Minute

Versus FDU: 0.17 Defensive Rebounds Per Minute.

It's a start. I'm looking for anything over 0.15 from Kimmeh here, and he got that. He didn't pull down any offensive rebounds, but that's alright -- offensive boards aren't the major problem.

Justin Safford: Rebounds Per Minute

Versus FDU: 0.17 Rebounds Per Minute.

Eh. Not impressed, but it's also at least a slight improvement.

Keith Ramsey: Free Throws Per Field Goal Attempt

Versus FDU: 0.40 FT/FGA.

I want to see 0.40 minimum from Ramsey, so I guess this is a win.

Laurence Bowers: Shots Per Minute

Versus FDU: 0.44 ShPM

Yes! I want to see anything over 0.35 from Bowers, so this is clearly a win. Again, right now he only shoots on fast breaks and when left wide open. He's not much of a penetrator or anything, and it's pretty likely that his percentages will fall if/when he starts to take more shots, but Saturday he was dominant. As was everybody else, I guess.

Marcus Denmon: Free Throws Per Field Goal Attempt

Versus FDU: 0.00 FT/FGA.

Six of Marcus' seven shots were 3-pointers, and since he made three of them, that's not too bad. But he was pretty much a perimeter player only on Saturday, and I still want to see more driving from him.

Mike Dixon: Adjusted Game Score Per Minute

Versus FDU: 0.49 AdjGS/Min.

Miguel Paul had a pretty decent game on Saturday, but he was still outpaced by Dixon, whom I am liking more and more. He shot efficiently (10 points in 7 shots, 2-for-3 from 3-point land) but didn't shoot too much for a point guard (7 shots in 20 minutes), plus he grabbed three defensive rebounds and managed five assists in 20 minutes. Lovely.

Miguel Paul: Team Possessions Per Game

Versus FDU: 74 possessions.

I'm still tinkering to come up with an individual "possessions accounted for" measure, but for now the pace was super-fast, and that's what Mizzou wants. I still like Paul in an "8-10 minutes per game, gun the accelerator" kind of role.

Steve Moore: Shots Per Minute

Versus FDU: 0.19 ShPM.

Eh. Stevie had three blocks and two steals, which was quite nice, but he still only took three shots in 16 minutes, and perhaps more worrisome, he grabbed only two rebounds, and committed two turnovers and three fouls, meaning his positives were still pretty much canceled out. I'm curious how his playing time works out as the year progresses, as the two bigs behind him looked a lot better, albeit against a few more of the FDU scrubs.

Tyler Stone and John Underwood: Minutes

Versus FDU: 19 Minutes.

The Bad: Stone and Underwood combined for just 3-for-7 shooting, which isn't very good at all for post players. Plus, Underwood committed three fouls in just 10 minutes.

The Good: Stone went 3-for-4 and grabbed four boards in 9 minutes, while Underwood pulled down seven rebounds. I do wonder if either or both of them could be ready to play a role in Miguel Paul's late-half, "gun the accelerator" team. Not sure which one, however -- they both have strengths and weaknesses.

Jarrett Sutton: Wins

Versus FDU: 1 win.

Sutton played, and Mizzou won. Funny how that works out.

Three Keys Revisited

From Friday's preview.

Show Up

Mizzou did.

Meet the Challenges

A majority of the players did, which is nice.

Block Out

Mizzou eventually did.

Summary

Nobody got hurt, everybody played and contributed something, Mike Anderson had a nice 50th birthday...in all, I guess that's a pretty good Saturday night. The only way this game would have been memorable at all was if they managed to lose or play FDU far too tight, but it didn't happen, so we'll forget all about this game a few weeks from now.

Study Hall: Mizzou vs Oral Roberts

Bill C. — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:00:18 -0000

Photo via The Trib's Parker Eshelman

Two inarguable facts:

This team is not doing as well as last year's, and the Big 12 is a better conference overall.
Every goal for this season is still on the table.

In other words, a) there is still time to make plenty out of this season, and b) they better get to crackin' on that. Mizzou has seven remaining non-conference games -- five cupcakes (and no matter how down you might be on the team right now, you simply cannot think they will lose at home to Fairleigh Dickinson, UA-Pine Bluff, Austin Peay, UMKC, or Savannah State; it's not going to happen), one good opponent (Illinois), and one competent opponent (Georgia). As long as the home magic continues, they will lose only to Illinois, and they will enter conference play at 11-4 (or maybe 10-5) without improving much at all. But if they want to perform well in conference and make the NCAA Tournament, the improvement process has to start now. So at the end of this post, we'll talk about what we need to see from each player between now and the end of the Savannah State game on January 6.

But for now, we must go through last night's wreckage.

Oral Roberts 60, Missouri 59

NCAA Basketball Stats

	Mizzou	ORU
Points Per Minute	1.48	1.50
Points Per Possession (PPP)	0.97	0.98
Points Per Shot (PPS)	0.91	1.13
2-PT FG%	40.8%	53.8%
3-PT FG%	37.5%	21.4%
FT%	33.3%	75.0%
True Shooting %	44.5%	51.5%

	Mizzou	ORU
Assists	11	11
Steals	10	8
Turnovers	11	18
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	1.91	1.06

	Mizzou	ORU
Expected Offensive Rebounds	14	11
Offensive Rebounds	16	14
Difference	+2	+3

Four Factors

One popular piece of basketball data used throughout the blogosphere at this point is the concept of The Four Factors of Basketball Success: Shooting, Turnovers, Rebounding, and Free Throws. Rarely is this concept more clearly illustrated than in last night's game.

NCAA Basketball Stats

Turnovers aside, Mizzou shot worse, rebounded worse, and both got to the free throw line worse and shot free throws worse. I mean, you almost can't blame Marcus Denmon and Zaire Taylor for missing their free throws at the end -- there was probably rust involved! (Okay, you can still blame them for missing the freebies ... was just trying to emphasize a point.)

In all, the results of two of these four factors are pretty much assured from the start of the game -- turnovers will go in Mizzou's favor and rebounds will go in the opponent's favor. That leaves the game up to shooting and free throws ... and Mizzou is, to say the least, a work in progress in that regard.

Player stats after the jump.

Player Stats

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Marcus Denmon	17.9	0.94	19 Min, 17 Pts (6-for-11 FG, 4-for-6 3PT), 3 Reb, 3 Stl
Keith Ramsey	12.8	0.44	29 Min, 4 Pts (2-for-5 FG), 9 Reb (6 Off), 3 Stl, 2 Ast
J.T. Tiller	8.5	0.29	29 MIn, 13 Pts (6-for-14 FG, 1-for-5 3PT), 2 Reb, 2 Ast
Laurence Bowers	7.8	0.46	17 Min, 6 Pts (3-for-7 FG), 4 Reb (3 Off), 2 Stl, 2 Blk
Justin Safford	7.3	0.27	27 Min, 10 Pts (5-for-10 FG), 2 Reb
Kim English	3.0	0.12	25 Min, 7 Pts (3-for-8 FG, 1-for-3 3PT)
Michael Dixon	2.6	0.24	11 Min, 2 Pts (1-for-4 FG), 3 Reb, 2 Ast
Steve Moore	0.0	0.00	6 Min, 0 Pts
Miguel Paul	-0.1	-0.03	5 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-1 FG)
Zaire Taylor	-3.0	-0.09	32 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-5 FG), 3 Reb, 2 Ast, 2 Blk

I want to rail on Zaire Taylor here -- he picked a really bad time to have the worst offensive game of his Mizzou career. Even with two blocks, he was worth -3 points last night; if he'd been worth just zero, Mizzou would have won. But he has been Mizzou's leader against "real" opponents this season, so this game was a bit of an aberration. Maybe he just really hates Tulsa or something.
Speaking of Taylor, even though he had a bad game, I think last night further emphasized a point we've been making all season: this team lacks a "natural" scorer. We've got two guys with potential in English and Denmon, but they're still growing into the role. The two most offensively skilled players (to me) are Taylor and Bowers ... and they combined for just 12 shots in 49 combined minutes (0.24 per minute). Kareem Rush types average about 0.50 shots per minute, while the DeMarre Carroll types average around 0.35-0.40.

Here are the Shots Per Minute stats for this team against "real" opponents (described below):

Kim English: 0.49
Michael Dixon: 0.44
Marcus Denmon: 0.38
J.T. Tiller: 0.36
Justin Safford: 0.33
Laurence Bowers: 0.31
Zaire Taylor: 0.22
Keith Ramsey: 0.11
Steve Moore: 0.11
Miguel Paul: 0.09

That distribution is all wrong to me. I don't even blame the guys at the top of the list -- when English is hot, he needs the ball; meanwhile, Dixon is playing the role of "catalyst," and while I would have a problem if his minutes doubled and he still shot that much, I have no problem with his role. Really, this team is leaning too much on J.T. Tiller and Justin Safford offensively, and that has to stop. ORU did a lovely job last night of making those two guys shoot, but better offensive flow will open up more shots for the guys who should be shooting (again, to me that's Taylor and Bowers). Of course, that also requires a change in those two players' mindsets, I think, and I'll get to that below.
Man oh man, if only Keith Ramsey had more offensive skill. He's solid on defense and good on the offensive glass, but I just get frightened anytime the ball's in his hands. He would be a perfect final piece of a good team, but on a team that needs offense (and more defensive rebounding), his skills are not maximized nearly as much.

Three Keys Revisited

From yesterday's preview. I was excited when I saw this post from Kimmeh on Twitter yesterday afternoon. Made me feel I had nailed the game's "keys" (that, or the team reads Rock M before heading to the gym).

Headed to the Arena Missouri at Oral Roberts. Keys: Tempo, REBOUNDING, Take care of the rock, make free throws and ATTACK the basket

Unfortunately, after seeing the game last night, I feel I nailed them a bit too much. And while I feel good about also suggesting that if ORU beat Mizzou, it would be because of Dominique Morrison, I still preferred to be wrong on that one.

Tempo

Here is potentially the most disturbing stat from last night's game: the game was played at a tempo of 61 possessions. Oral Roberts came in playing in the upper 60's, and as I've mentioned plenty of times before, Mizzou likes the game in the 70s or higher. With a team filled with mostly underclassmen, ORU was successfully able to turn this into a halfcourt, plodding game, and because of that, they were able to get away with using only seven scholarship players without wearing down. That should never happen. This illustrates very clearly the fact that Mizzou is not nearly as able to force their style upon opponents right now, and that simply has to change. We'll get into how below.

Rebounds

Actually, this wasn't as bad as I thought, not because of ORU's offensive rebounding (too high), but because Mizzou's offensive rebounding (thank you, Ramsey and Bowers) almost balanced it out. In terms of expected rebounds, Mizzou was only -1 for the game, and since ORU has solid size, that's not terrible. Really, this game came down a lot more to shooting and tempo than rebounding, which is different than what my eyes were telling me at times last night.

Laurence Bowers

SHOOT MORE, LAURENCE. But we'll get into that later.

Mizzou vs "Real" Opponents

Yesterday I debated whether or not to call ORU a "real" opponent or not. I was leaning toward counting them simply because it was a road game. And then they beat us ... which means they were real enough, I guess.

I figure these numbers will make the most sense by comparing them to last year's numbers from around the same time of the season. When Mizzou played Illinois last year, it was their fourth game against a "real" opponent. Therefore, we'll compare Mizzou's current stats to how things looked last year after games against Xavier, USC, Cal, and Illinois. The "real" schedule was of higher quality last year than it has been this year (Old Dominion, Xavier, Vandy, Oregon, ORU), so keep that in mind; plus, the small sample sizes here might not paint a truly accurate picture. But still, a comparison might be able to tell us something.

	2009-10		2008-09
	Mizzou	Opp.	Mizzou	Opp.
Points Per Minute	1.83	1.69	1.91	1.80
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.06	0.98	1.09	1.02
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.22	1.24	1.22	1.36
2-PT FG%	44.8%	46.0%	52.6%	46.7%
3-PT FG%	38.5%	29.7%	25.0%	43.2%
FT%	72.3%	77.6%	65.5%	63.9%
True Shooting %	53.3%	52.3%	N/A	N/A

	Mizzou	Opp.	Mizzou	Opp.
Assists/Gm	14.6	11.2	17.8	14.0
Steals/Gm	9.6	6.8	12.0	5.0
Turnovers/Gm	13.0	19.8	12.0	19.5
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	1.86	0.91	2.48	0.97

	Mizzou	Opp.	Mizzou	Opp.
Expected Offensive Rebounds	65	61	53	48
Offensive Rebounds	60	70	55	55
Difference	-5	+9	+2	+7

Taking into account weaker competition, it appears that Mizzou's defense is actually better, and their offense is worse. What I find interesting is the Points Per Possession figure: Mizzou was +0.07 at this point last year and is +0.08 this year. That suggests two things to me:

1) Mizzou isn't as far away from being a good team as we may think. The competition is worse, so you figure a +0.08 this year would have been about a +0.05 or +0.06 with last year's slate, but that's still not too far off. Yes, this is skewed by the Oregon win, but last year's numbers were skewed by the California win, so that more or less balances out. Mizzou isn't as good as last year, but I would suggest they still have time to do so.

2) Tempo is even more important than we might think. At 60 possessions per game, a +0.06 per possession advantage would mean about a 3-4 point victory. At 75 possessions, that's 4-5. We could have used that extra point or two last night. Like a football offense that runs the hurry-up all game to maximize their per-play advantage (think: OU and Mizzou from 2008), Mizzou must do a better job of pushing the tempo. They need all the possessions they can get, and opponents have been far too successful at slowing things down this year...which is odd, considering Mizzou's defense has been at least a hair better.
This team is much worse at 2-pointers, but better at 3's. Here are the 2-point percentages for Mizzou's forwards, once against against "real" teams only:

Justin Safford: 50.0% (14-for-28)
Keith Ramsey: 56.3% (9-for-16)
Laurence Bowers: 50.0% (15-for-30)
Steve Moore: 0.0% (0-for-2)

50.0% across the board. Now here are the 2-point %'s from last year's forwards (albeit against both "real" and "not real" teams):

DeMarre Carroll: 57.9%
Leo Lyons: 49.9%
Keith Ramsey: 67.5%
Justin Safford: 51.4%
Laurence Bowers: 58.7%

This shows us two things: 1) we miss DeMarre, and 2) we're not creating nearly as many easy opportunities, most likely because we're not pushing the pace as much.
One underrated explanation for our struggles: we're turning the ball over more. Not a lot more, but the kind of turnovers are more costly. Mizzou is averaging just one more turnover per game against "real" teams, but opponents are creating almost two more steals. Steals are worse than other turnovers because they are infinitely more likely to lead to easy baskets, so Mizzou is giving up basically two more possessions' worth of easy baskets each game; their opponents' FG%'s are still lower than last year, but they might be a lot lower if not for the turnovers.

The biggest increase in turnovers per minute in the backcourt have come from the following players: J.T. Tiller (from 0.08 TOPM last year to 0.10 this year), Miguel Paul (0.08 to 0.12) and Marcus Denmon (0.06 to 0.08). Zaire Taylor has held steady at 0.04 and Mike Dixon has managed a respectable (for a freshman point) 0.06. Laurence Bowers has also gone from 0.05 to 0.08, which hasn't helped matters. Tiller will probably get more under control as the season wears on, but I worry about Paul. He is by far Mizzou's best assists man (0.21 per minute), but if he can't be trusted to handle the ball without turning it over ... well, we don't keep him in there for his jumper.
Here's the most baffling finding from the above table: Mizzou really isn't much worse in terms of defensive rebounding. Again, we haven't faced as many good offensive teams, so those numbers are certainly worse than last year's, but not that much worse. Now, that doesn't change the fact that Mizzou isn't doing very well on the defensive glass. On a per-minute basis, Marcus Denmon is grabbing as many defensive rebounds per minute as Laurence Bowers (0.11) and almost as many as Keith Ramsey (0.13). Steve Moore leads the team at 0.14, but he has been literally no threat whatsoever on offense (doesn't take any shots, doesn't grab any offensive rebounds), but I guess if he can provide some decent block-outs, he'll still be worth some minutes. But he really needs to start offering something else with his game. Anything at all.

(One other area for improvement: last year, Matt Lawrence averaged 0.08 defensive rebounds per minute. This year, Kim English is averaging only 0.05. Hit the boards, Kimmeh.)

Where Mizzou has fallen off most, strangely enough, is on the offensive side of the ball, where even though Keith Ramsey and Laurence Bowers have done well on the offensive glass (0.10 and 0.16 offensive rebounds per minute, respectively), Mizzou has fallen off. The main culprit: Justin Safford (0.05). And, of course, Steve Moore (0.00).

And by the way, this whole rebound conversation once again points out how weird/unique Laurence Bowers is as a player. He's averaging almost 50% more offensive rebounds per minute (0.16) than defensive (0.11). You figure it out, because I can't.

Player Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Zaire Taylor	12.1	0.39	31.2 MPG, 9.2 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 3.2 APG, 2.8 SPG
Laurence Bowers	11.2	0.56	20.0 MPG, 7.8 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 1.4 BPG, 1.2 APG, 1.0 SPG
Marcus Denmon	9.2	0.49	18.6 MPG, 10.4 PPG, 2.6 RPG
Kim English	9.2	0.38	24.0 MPG, 13.2 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 1.2 SPG
Keith Ramsey	9.2	0.32	28.6 MPG, 4.6 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 1.6 SPG, 1.4 BPG, 1.2 APG
J.T. Tiller	8.7	0.33	26.4 MPG, 11.2 PPG, 3.4 APG, 2.2 RPG, 2.6 TOPG
Justin Safford	6.8	0.33	20.8 MPG, 8.2 PPG, 2.8 RPG
Michael Dixon	4.9	0.34	14.4 MPG, 6.8 PPG, 1.4 APG
Tyler Stone	1.6	1.06	1.5 MPG, 1 PPG
Miguel Paul	-0.1	-0.02	8.5 MPG, 0.5 PPG, 1.8 APG
Steve Moore	-0.3	-0.04	7.4 MPG, 0.0 PPG, 1.0 RPG
John Underwood	1 gm		2 Pts
Jarrett Sutton	1 gm		3 Pts

Plenty of blame to go around from last night, but I do think the ORU game pointed out one thing in particular: this team desperately needs Taylor and Bowers to step up. Every night. They both played well below their averages yesterday, and without them Mizzou couldn't even survive against a young, thin team.

Time for a Challenge

So I mentioned at the start of this long post (and seriously, this is much more than I thought I would have to write in discussing a game against Oral Roberts) that this team's goals are still all within reach. And we see from the "last year vs this year" table that the team really might not be far away from being decent. Last year's team was not much better at this point last season (remember, we didn't actually know this team was really good until late-January), and that's an encouraging sign, but if Mizzou really is going to take a step forward like they did last year, I have a challenge for every single player on the team, and I'm going to need to see signs of these things during the cupcake games to know that things might still be alright.

Zaire Taylor: Be. Aggressive. Be, be, aggressive.

For this team to improve, two players need to put the offense on their backs, and Taylor is one of them. This team has quite a few known quantities at this point -- J.T. Tiller is never going to be much of a perimeter threat, and teams know it; ORU intentionally left him open on the perimeter as much as possible, and it paid off. Kim English is a Clarence Gilbert-esque streak shooter who will carry the offense at times, but not nearly all the time. Keith Ramsey is a glue guy, a "putbacks and screens" guy who will never carry an offense. But Zaire Taylor still remains a mystery. He's shooting 50% from 3-point land (again, against "real" teams only), and he's a good penetrator, averaging more free throws per field goal attempt than anybody on the team. That's a good combination. But he's a point guard.

Right now, Tiller is too turnover prone to man the point, which means that Taylor is kind of in a catch-22 situation. If he shoots more, he might kill the offensive flow. However ... when there is no offensive flow, and when the other team has seemingly succeeded at making sure that a majority of the shots are coming from Tiller or Safford, that's when Taylor needs to pretend that there are five seconds left against Kansas and take over. One of the bigger differences between this year and last year is that it seems that mini-slumps last 50% longer because there is too much indecision on offense. Taylor is the key to fixing that, and he must step it up. Stat to watch: shots per minute.

J.T. Tiller: Keep at it.

It goes without saying that a deep foot bruise is about the worst thing possible for a defensive specialist to come back from, and as Dominique Morrison showed yesterday, JT's got a ways to go to get back to becoming the best defensive player in the Big 12. But we know he can do it, and honestly, if he just rounds into shape, then Mizzou a) forces more turnovers and b) gets more easy transition baskets. Stat to watch: steals per minute.

Kim English: Crash the boards.

At this point, Kimmeh is what he is on offense -- a streak shooter and our best long-distance threat. When he's hot, he will carry this team, but when he's not, he really needs to provide more value. That starts on the glass. This team needs some help -- two of its four main "big men" (Safford, Moore) are averaging fewer than 0.15 rebounds per minute, which is simply awful, and Mizzou needs #24 to get involved. It's obviously going to take a team effort to help on the glass, but at any given moment, Kimmeh is the third-tallest Mizzou player on the court, and he needs to help more than he has to date. Stat to watch: defensive rebounds per minute.

Justin Safford: Block out.

We know that Saffy has been a bit hobbled this year, and we know that he is a guard in a forward's body (remember, he's the one who had the extremely late growth spurt, taking him from 6'3 guard to 6'8 power forward), meaning he feels as or more comfortable on the perimeter as in the paint. And that's fine. But this team desperately needs more interior presence, and considering he's playing power forward for 21 minutes a night, then it's gotta be Safford. His game would work great if Mizzou had a big-time interior presence, but ... well, we don't have one. So Saffy's gotta adjust his game. Stat to watch: rebounds per minute, of any kind.

Keith Ramsey: Go up strong.

This could go for any of Mizzou's bigs, really, but I'm choosing Ramsey because he has the most potential. I've mentioned many times how scared I get when he has the ball in his hands. I want him to either shoot it (if he's within five feet of the basket) or pass it, and immediately. The "pass it immediately" bit won't really show up in the box score, but when he goes up to shoot (which is rarely), he has to get mean about it. No fadeaways. Search for contact. He is averaging 0.38 free throw attempts per field goal attempt, which is respectable (Bowers and Safford are averaging 0.19 and 0.15, respectively). But DeMarre Carroll averaged 0.43, and Leo Lyons averaged a whopping (and quite underrated) 0.69. Mizzou is one of the worst teams in the country at drawing fouls, and while that has something to do with how many 3-pointers we take, it also has something to do with bigs drawing fouls. I don't want to say Bowers and Safford are lost causes, but let's just say that I have a lot more hope for Ramsey getting to the line at this stage than them. Stat to watch: free throws per field goal attempt.

Laurence Bowers: More Leo.

I've compared Bowers' game to Leo Lyons' many times, but it's not a perfect comparison. Bowers is better and more active defensively (his blocked 3-pointer yesterday was one of the more sickeningly athletic plays you'll ever see -- not only because he blocked it, but because he came from about ten feet away and blocked it while it was basically still in the guy's hand ... dude's got quite a bit of Hakim Warrick in him), he's a better passer, and I think his jumper has a foot or two more range. And he's already twice the offensive rebounder that Leo was. But Lyons was also infinitely more offensive-minded and better at creating shots, and this team desperately needs that. Both Leo and DeMarre averaged 0.41 shots per minute, and while they were both bigger and more physical than Bowers, Laurence is simply too good a shooter to be averaging fewer shots per minute (0.31) than, among others, Justin Safford. I realize his percentages will likely fall with more shot attempts, but I'll be perfectly blunt: Laurence Bowers' ceiling and this team's ceiling are probably more directly correlated than any other player on this team. We have to figure out how good #21 is, and he has to become more aggressive offensively. Stat to watch: shots per minute.

Marcus Denmon: Become J.T. Tiller.

It's funny -- no matter how dismayed I get talking about this current team, I am not even 1% less optimistic about the program's future. And Denmon is a major reason why. He is almost as good a defender as J.T. Tiller was a sophomore, and he manages to defend well without fouling once a minute. He has the potential to be a big-time stopper one day, maybe as soon as next season. And his offensive game is already more advanced than Tiller's. He's a better shooter, at least, and I think he's got potential as a passer. And he's tough as nails, just like J.T. But I think what we're missing most from Denmon is penetration. Sure, he had a killer missed free throw yesterday, but he's still one of the better FT shooters on the team, and he simply doesn't get to the line as much as he could. Nobody on this team does, but like Taylor and Tiller, Denmon is decent with the ball in his hands and big enough to draw contact without breaking into two pieces. As I mentioned above with Ramsey, this team is terrible at getting to the line, and I think Denmon's tough enough to do something about it. Lower your head, risk a charge a couple times a game, dish out some punishment, and get to the freaking line. As opponents start to fear his three-pointer more and more (he's now making 43% of 3's on the season), he'll have an even better opportunity to pump-fake and drive. Do it. Stat to watch: free throws per field goal attempt.

Mike Dixon: Keep learning.

Needless to say, I have a lot more hope in Mike Dixon's ceiling than I do in Miguel Paul's, and while he's already stolen quite a few of Paul's minutes (in "real" games, he's played 72 minutes to Paul's 34), his goal needs to be to just keep improving and potentially stealing more of those minutes. Shoot better, drive better, pass better, etc. The future for Mizzou is extremely bright with Dixon potentially starting in the backcourt with Denmon next year, and the faster Dixon learns this year, the better this team becomes. Stat to watch: Adjusted Game Score per minute.

Miguel Paul: You know what? Move faster.

Paul has not controlled the ball well enough this year, but the more I think about it, the less I care. I see Paul's role on this team as simply the late-first-half punisher. Remember how Mike Anderson would send in the scrubs to run the opponent ragged over the last five minutes of the first half? Remember how good Paul sometimes was in that situation? His role will be to run the point in that period of time and simply go as fast as he can, as much as he can. Even if the other team is more successful this year at slowing the tempo down, it will still be hard to maintain that after 15-16 minutes of pressure, and I officially consider it Paul's job to speed up the tempo at the end of the first half. Right now, Mizzou is only averaging 69 possessions per game against "real" opponents. Last year, it was 72. Miguel Paul, your goal is to single-handedly bring that to at least 70. Stat to watch: team possessions per game.

Steve Moore: Dunk. Once a game.

I mentioned in my last Study Hall that I'm not sure Steve Moore brings anything to the table other than simply being big. As mentioned above, he's one of the better defensive rebounders on the team, and clearly Mizzou needs that. But he is a black hole on offense, and while I think he's overall pretty limited, I've decided that his goal should be one dunk attempt per game. Even if he misses it horribly, or even if he absolutely bowls over an entire team, committing three charges at once, I want this guy flying at the rim on offense at least once a game. He's our only true "big guy," and if he can't soften up the opponent for even a minute or two at a time, he doesn't need to be on the court. Stat to watch: shots per minute (since I don't have a "dunk attempts per minute" stat).

Tyler Stone and John Underwood: Impress in practice. And quickly.

Guys, there is playing time to be had if you get up to speed. Even if it is just 4-5 minutes per game on Miguel Paul's "end of first half run-and-gun" team, there are minutes to be earned if you continue to improve. I still have high hopes for Stone, but I think Underwood in particular could be useful as soon as conference play. He already looks like he has gained a bit of weight (at least a couple of pounds, right? I'm not making this up, right?), and even if he hasn't, if he can block out better than Safford or Bowers (or Moore), then there is a place for him on the court. This team has decent depth, but it could be great depth if one of these guys improves enough to find his way on the court in something other than a mop-up role. Do what you've got to do to get the coach's attention, guys, and do it as quickly as possible. We need help down low. Stat to watch: uhh, minutes per game?

Jarrett Sutton: Play more.

For some reason, Mizzou almost always wins when you play...haven't quite figured that out. (Okay, yes I have.) Stat to watch: wins? Whatever.

In all, this team still has plenty to believe in, and if they make a similar December-to-January leap as they did last year, look out. But right now their weaknesses are very obvious (and improvable). Let's see what they do for the rest of non-conference play, not only against Illinois and Georgia, but against the cupcakes too. We know better play is possible, but they need to start improving right this instant.

Study Hall: Mizzou vs Oregon

Bill C. — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:00:17 -0000

More photos » by L.G. Patterson - AP

13 days ago: Oregon's E.J. Singler, left, LeKendric Longmire (24) and Michael Dunigan (33) battle Missouri's Zaire Taylor, right, and Keith Ramsey, center, for a rebound during the first half of an NCAA college basketball game Saturday, Dec. 5, 2009, in Columbia, Mo. (AP Photo/L.G. Patterson)

Browse more photos »

Well, THAT was fun...

Mizzou 106, Oregon 69

NCAA Basketball Stats

	Mizzou	Ducks
Points Per Minute	2.65	1.73
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.35	0.88
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.66	0.96
2-PT FG%	65.7%	33.3%
3-PT FG%	48.3%	22.2%
FT%	72.0%	77.8%
True Shooting %	70.7%	41.1%

	Mizzou	Ducks
Assists	28	5
Steals	8	8
Turnovers	15	20
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	2.40	0.65

	Mizzou	Ducks
Expected Offensive Rebounds	10	19
Offensive Rebounds	9	24
Difference	-1	+5

Home games are fun.

I felt a blowout coming, but I chickened out and only predicted a 19-point win. I should have known better. I thought Oregon could win the rebounding battle, and if they were making their 3's, they might stay in the game a while. Well, they did rebound well, but they were terrible from behind the arc, and after dilly-dallying for a few minutes, Mizzou stomped on the throat, which is always fun to watch.

Three-pointers.

So...are three-pointers a strength for this team now? I'm so confused.

A near-perfect first half.

First half BCI: Mizzou 2.57, Oregon 0.42
First half FG%: Mizzou 60.0%, Oregon 24.2%
First half Points: Oregon 24, Kim English & Marcus Denmon 23

Eh?

Mizzou is a Top 20 team in Block %, but they are average at best in terms of rebounds. I guess Mizzou's good at jumping high but bad at positioning. Now, Oregon really is a strong rebounding team, and Mizzou improved their performance on the boards as compared to the Vandy game, but it's still clearly the single biggest issue this team faces moving forward.

Player stats after the jump.

Player Stats

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Laurence Bowers	22.2	1.06	21 Min, 14 Pts (5-for-6 FG), 7 Reb, 5 Ast, 2 Stl
Zaire Taylor	20.2	0.88	23 Min, 16 Pts (6-for-10 FG, 4-for-5 3PT), 5 Reb, 4 Ast, 3 Stl
Marcus Denmon	13.9	0.63	22 Min, 17 Pts (6-for-13 FG, 4-for-10 3PT), 5 Reb
Kim English	11.2	0.53	21 Min, 14 Pts (6-for-12 FG, 2-for-5 3PT), 3 Ast
Justin Safford	9.9	0.50	20 Min, 9 Pts (3-for-4 FG, 2-for-2 3PT), 5 Reb, 2 Ast
Michael Dixon	9.3	0.46	20 Min, 10 Pts (3-for-7 FG), 3 Reb, 3 Ast
Keith Ramsey	4.9	0.20	24 Min, 7 Pts (2-for-3 FG), 4 Reb, 2 Ast, 3 TO
J.T. Tiller	4.7	0.36	13 Min, 10 Pts (3-for-4 FG), 3 TO
Jarrett Sutton	3.0	1.51	2 MIn, 3 Pts (1-for-1 FG, as always)
Tyler Stone	2.7	0.89	3 Min, 2 Pts (1-for-1 FG)
Miguel Paul	2.2	0.16	14 Min, 2 Pts (1-for-1 FG), 6 Ast, 4 TO
John Underwood	1.3	0.33	4 Min, 2 Pts (0-for-1 FG)
Steve Moore	0.9	0.07	13 Min, 0 Pts

Laurence Bowers: box score filler. When he stays out of foul trouble (i.e. when Mizzou plays teams without a talented, old-school 250-pounder at center), anyway. He's shooting 64% for the season, grabbing almost three offensive rebounds (six overall) per game, blocks almost two shots per game, has a 2-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio (and BCI of 3.83)...I'm not sure I've ever seen a player like him. We just need to make sure he stays on the court.
By the way, Zaire Taylor is now shooting 59% from 3-point land. Just thought I'd mention that. As I mentioned before, he's never going to be a shoot-first guy, and we turned him into that, his percentages go down, but he has become a tremendously efficient shooter. We talk about how Mizzou needs one more pure scorer, but I'm curious how the offense develops with Bowers and Taylor both shaping up to be astoundingly efficient. Our "one more scorer" is probably one of these two, and I'm not sure what to think about that.
Then again, maybe that "one more scorer" is Marcus Denmon? As Long Duk Dong would say, I so confuse. When Mizzou looks good, they look so good that they mess with perspective.
So here's a question: how good is Steve Moore? He's got size that no other Mizzou player has, and that alone makes him more valuable than his stats suggest. He probably does good things for the overall team defense ... but how many good things? Because from a box score perspective, he's a blank slate. While we still have opportunities, I'd love to get Stone and/or Underwood (particularly Underwood) some PT with the first stringers just to see what happens, but I guess that's not going to happen.

Mizzou vs "Real" Opponents*

* "Real" opponents are BCS conference teams and solid mid-majors. So far, Mizzou's "real" opponents have been, according to me: Old Dominion, Richmond, Vanderbilt, and Oregon.

	Mizzou	Opp
Points Per Minute	1.92	1.74
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.08	0.98
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.31	1.27
2-PT FG%	46.1%	44.0%
3-PT FG%	38.8%	31.7%
FT%	73.5%	77.9%
True Shooting %	55.4%	52.5%

	Mizzou	Opp
Assists/Gm	15.5	11.3
Steals/Gm	9.5	6.5
Turnovers/Gm	13.5	20.3
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	1.85	0.88

	Mizzou	Opp
Expected Offensive Rebounds	51	50
Offensive Rebounds	44	56
Difference	-7	+6

Looking at just these four games, Mizzou is still looking alright from an offensive standpoint. The assists are nice (the Oregon game just balanced out the Vandy game in the end), and they're shooting alright. Really, the major question mark right now is in the rebounds department. Only Laurence Bowers (0.28) is averaging more than 0.20 rebounds per minute. For reference, DeMarre Carroll and Leo Lyons both averaged 0.26 last year. Keith Ramsey (0.20), Justin Safford (0.16) and Steve Moore (0.16) all need to pick up their games.

Player Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Zaire Taylor	15.8	0.51	31.0 MPG, 11.5 PPG (1.53 Pts Per Shot), 3.5 APG, 3.3 RPG, 3.5 SPG
Laurence Bowers	12.1	0.58	20.8 MPG, 8.3 PPG (1.38 PPS), 5.8 RPG, 1.5 APG, 1.3 BPG
Kim English	10.6	0.45	23.8 MPG, 14.8 PPG (1.16 PPS), 2.8 RPG, 1.3 SPG
J.T. Tiller	8.8	0.34	25.8 MPG, 10.8 PPG (1.30 PPS), 3.8 APG, 2.3 RPG, 2.8 TOPG
Keith Ramsey	8.3	0.29	28.5 MPG, 4.8 PPG (1.73 PPS), 5.8 RPG, 1.5 BPG, 1.3 SPG
Marcus Denmon	7.2	0.39	18.5 MPG, 8.8 PPG (1.46 PPS), 2.5 RPG
Justin Safford	6.7	0.35	19.3 MPG, 7.8 PPG (1.29 PPS), 3.0 RPG
Mike Dixon	5.4	0.36	15.3 MPG, 8.0 PPG (1.14 PPS), 1.5 APG
Jarrett Sutton	3.5	1.77	2.0 MPG
Tyler Stone	1.6	1.05	1.5 MPG
John Underwood	1.6	0.39	4.0 MPG, 2.0 PPG
Miguel Paul	-0.1	-0.01	9.7 MPG, 0.7 PPG, 2.0 APG
Steve Moore	-0.3	-0.04	7.8 MPG, 0.0 PPG, 1.3 RPG

More reference points: DeMarre Carroll averaged 17.3/game last year, and Leo Lyons 13.5. I've compared Bowers to Lyons numerous times, and the fact that Lyons '08-09 and Bowers '09-10 averaged/are averaging the same per-minute total (0.58) makes me feel better about that comparison. The only question for now is, who's picking up the slack for Carroll's absence? Right now the answer is, strangely enough, Zaire Taylor.

Summary

One batch of great play can make you forget how frustrated you were earlier in the week. Oregon's not very good beyond the rebounding thing, but Mizzou played wonderfully. If they play that well on Wednesday, they will blow a beyond-banged-up Oral Roberts team off the court.

Study Hall: Mizzou vs Richmond

Bill C. — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:00:20 -0000

Richmond 59, Mizzou 52

NCAA Basketball Stats

	Mizzou	Spiders
Points Per Minute	1.30	1.48
Points Per Possession (PPP)	0.87	0.99
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.06	1.26
2-PT FG%	36.8%	42.9%
3-PT FG%	18.2%	33.3%
FT%	78.3%	77.3%
True Shooting %	44.0%	52.0%

	Mizzou	Spiders
Assists	5	13
Steals	6	5
Turnovers	12	14
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	0.92	1.29

	Mizzou	Spiders
Expected Offensive Rebounds	13	11
Offensive Rebounds	12	9
Difference	-1	-2

Reactions:

A buddy of mine (lionsden) saw both South Padre games and said that, for both teams, the rims in the convention center were brutal. Credit Richmond for figuring out how to win anyway, but both teams' shooting numbers were at least a bit artificially low, both for this game and the ODU game Friday night, really.

And you can see that a bit in the numbers. No matter how good the defense is, you're rarely going to see Zaire Taylor and J.T. Tiller go a combined 5-for-20 from inside the 3-point line over a two-game span, not to mention Mike "old-school, mid-range" Dixon going 1-for-7 from inside the line. That's a 22.2% 2-point % for Mizzou's three best penetrating/finishing guards, and no matter how much of that is due to rims or good defense, obviously I'm not too concerned about that turning into a long-term slump.

That said, we knew shooting could be an issue for this team, and obviously the trip to Texas did nothing to alleviate that concern. Mizzou went a combined 8-for-31 (25.8%) from 3-point range, and while the rims certainly didn't help (I think it's telling that Mizzou only took 11 3's against Richmond after taking 20 against ODU -- they probably knew it was a lower-percentage shot than normal), Mizzou is more than capable of shooting 25% on 3-pointers with the friendliest rims in the world.
Well, BCI is thus far a perfect predictor. When they win the BCI battle, they're 4-0. When they lose it, they're 0-1. Obviously terrible shooting hurt the assist numbers, but regardless ... perfect predictor!
Lionsden also mentioned that Richmond was abnormally patient in dealing with Mizzou's press, risking a 10-second call multiple times to make sure that no stupid pass was made, leading to an easy bucket. This makes sense, as they are an extremely experienced team (of their top six players from a minutes perspective, three are juniors, three are seniors), but in the end, if Mizzou could have made some buckets, they'd have won.
Another reasonably decent showing by Mizzou on the boards. Richmond is a pretty big team, and Mizzou outdid them by one in terms of both expected rebounds and actual rebounds. Laurence Bowers' five offensive rebounds were the single biggest cause for this.

Player stats after the jump.

Player Stats

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Laurence Bowers	18.1	0.62	29 Min, 8 Pts (4-for-8 FG), 8 Reb (5 Off)
Kim English	15.8	0.56	28 Min, 14 Pts (4-for-12 FG, 0-for-3 3PT), 3 Stl, 2 Reb
J.T. Tiller	10.9	0.39	28 Min, 11 Pts (2-for-6 FG), 5 Reb, 3 TO
Zaire Taylor	5.6	0.16	35 Min, 7 Pts (1-for-8 FG), 2 Stl, 4 PF
Justin Safford	2.5	0.25	10 Min, 5 Pts (2-for-4 FG), 2 Reb, 4 PF
Keith Ramsey	1.3	0.05	24 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-0 FG), 4 Reb
Michael Dixon	1.1	0.14	8 Min, 5 Pts (2-for-7 FG),
Steve Moore	0.2	0.02	12 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-1 FG), 3 Reb
Marcus Denmon	-1.8	-0.10	18 Min, 2 Pts (1-for-2 FG), 3 TO
Miguel Paul	-2.7	-0.34	8 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-0 FG)

Even when he scores only eight points, Laurence Bowers still makes by far the most statistical impact of anybody on the team. As mentioned above, his five offensive rebounds were vital, even if Mizzou came up short.
Kim English: 1-for-10 from 3-point range in South Padre. In fact, the only person who made more than one was Mike Dixon (3-for-6).
In a game that was within two points with seven seconds left, Mizzou got an estimated -4.5 points of contribution from Marcus Denmon and Miguel Paul. I don't want to overstate that number, as box scores don't take into account drawn charges (why don't they???) or good defense, but still, they combined for one assist, three turnovers, one FG and an 0-for-3 line from the FT line. Not the best game for the Mizzou bench.
Your leading AdjSC scorers in Texas: Laurence Bowers (12.5 per game), J.T. Tiller (11.1), Kim English (9.7), Zaire Taylor (9.4), Keith Ramsey (7.9).

Summary

No matter how much analysis we do here, it all comes down to shooting. Richmond stood up relatively well to Mizzou's press, and the game was very much played at Richmond's pace (60 possessions, instead of the 70-75 Mizzou prefers), but in the end, if Mizzou made shots they're capable of making, they'd have won. This loss does not really affect me long-term, but it does raise some worry with a trip to Vanderbilt coming up next. Now's the time when you want another couple of easy home games to get everybody's confidence back, but Mizzou does not have that opportunity. Instead, now comes a very interesting three-game stretch: @Vanderbilt, Oregon, @Oral Roberts. Go 2-1 here, and I still think this is easily a tournament team. Slip up twice, however, and there's at least a smidge of worry.

Study Hall: Mizzou vs Old Dominion

Bill C. — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:51:54 -0000

No fancy write-up here, and no waiting for the Statsheet.com graphs--gotta clear the slate for MU-KU tomorrow, so here's a bare-bones look at MU's 66-61 win over Old Dominion.

UPDATE, 9:22 am: Alright, I added the Statsheet.com goodies.

Mizzou 66, Old Dominion 61

NCAA Basketball Stats

	Mizzou	ODU
Points Per Minute	1.65	1.53
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.03	0.95
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.22	1.45
2-PT FG%	41.2%	44.8%
3-PT FG%	30.0%	46.2%
FT%	76.9%	70.8%
True Shooting %	50.4%	58.0%

	Mizzou	ODU
Assists	13	14
Steals	10	6
Turnovers	13	23
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	1.77	0.87

	Mizzou	ODU
Expected Offensive Rebounds	13	9
Offensive Rebounds	13	8
Difference	0	-1

Reactions:

As somebody said in the game thread, with shooting like this, this was easily a game we could have lost in the past, but we didn't. This does further prove how hot-and-cold our shooting is likely to be this year. One person gets hot, the entire team gets hot. One person goes cold, the entire team goes cold. Either way, with a game played at ODU's tempo (roughly 64 possessions for each team), Mizzou still managed to force 23 turnovers and win the game. Kudos.
More fun with Expected Rebounds data. Hooray, Mizzou grabbed five more offensive rebounds than ODU! Oh wait, they also missed a ton more shots. Either way, against a long ODU team, Mizzou held its own on the boards, thanks mostly to Keith Ramsey, who is quickly becoming invaluable on the glass and on defense, despite massive holes in his offensive game (we're going to have to accept that he's going to turn the ball over at least three times per game).

Player stats after the jump.

Player Stats

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Keith Ramsey	13.2	0.40	33 Min, 6 Pts (3-for-4 FG), 8 Reb, 2 Stl, 2 Blk, 3 TO
Zaire Taylor	12.6	0.37	34 Min, 6 Pts (1-for-4 FG), 4 Ast, 4 Stl, 3 Reb
J.T. Tiller	11.6	0.38	31 Min, 12 Pts (3-for-11 FG, 1-for-3 3PT), 7 Ast, 2 Reb
Laurence Bowers	8.6	0.48	18 Min, 8 Pts (3-for-7 FG), 5 Reb, 2 Blk
Justin Safford	8.6	0.32	27 Min, 8 Pts (4-for-7 FG), 3 Reb, 3 Stl
Marcus Denmon	7.9	0.46	17 Min, 9 Pts (1-for-4 FG), 3 Reb
Kim English	5.4	0.28	19 Min, 11 Pts (3-for-10 FG, 1-for-7 3PT), 3 Reb
Michael Dixon	0.7	0.06	12 Min, 6 Pts (2-for-6 FG, 2-for-4 3PT)
Tyler Stone	0.0	0.00	0 Min (but the box score says he was in the game at some point)
Miguel Paul	-1.1	-0.16	7 Min, 0 Pts
Steve Moore	-1.5	-0.76	2 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-1 FG)

Ladies and gentlemen, your MVP, Keith Ramsey. With Party Starter Bowers in foul trouble, Ramsey grabbed five offensive rebounds and, more importantly, played a whopping 33 minutes.
Eleven guys saw the court (unless that was an error regarding Tyler Stone's entry), and eight scored between 6 and 12 points. Balance! Some (Kimmeh) took far more shots than others (Denmon), but it got the job done.

Keys to the Game Revisited

From this morning's preview.

Pace. I did not nail this one. This was played at ODU's pace, and Mizzou won.
Rebounds. Mizzou held their own. That's always a winner against solid teams.
Zaire Taylor. Mr. Coffee ... well, he closed. His one made field goal was a late-game dagger 3, and his four assists and four steals helped Mizzou win the all-important BCI battle.

Summary

From one Virginia mid-major to another. Mizzou knocks out one from Norfolk today and gets to take on one from Richmond tomorrow. Take home the title, boys.

Study Hall: Mizzou vs Chattanooga

Bill C. — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:15 -0000

Off to San Padre we go...

NCAA Basketball Stats

Mizzou 99, Chattanooga 56

	Mizzou	UTC
Points Per Minute	2.48	1.40
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.29	0.73
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.55	1.08
2-PT FG%	63.0%	56.3%
3-PT FG%	48.6%	15.0%
FT%	78.6%	68.8%
True Shooting %	70.6%	47.4%

	Mizzou	UTC
Assists	25	10
Steals	24	7
Turnovers	18	29
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	2.72	0.59

	Mizzou	UTC
Expected Offensive Rebounds	10	12
Offensive Rebounds	10	12
Difference	0	0

Reactions:

Forcing 29 turnovers is impressive enough, but...with 24 steals? Wow. Not a ton of unforced errors there from Chattanooga, though I guess I should mention that some of those steals were a little too easy.
Here's where the Expected Rebounds figure comes in handy -- Mizzou barely missed any shots, so their initially unimpressive 10 offensive rebounds becomes a little more understandable.
A 70.6% True Shooting percentage? Sheesh. Anything over about 55% is pretty solid, so needless to say, 70% is pretty ridiculous. But when Kimmeh's hot, the numbers will get pretty ridiculous.

Player stats after the jump.

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Kim English	18.3	1.02	18 Min, 26 Pts (10-for-17 FG, 5-for-11 3PT), 2 Reb, 2 Stl
Marcus Denmon	16.7	0.60	28 Min, 17 Pts (5-for-12 FG, 3-for-8 3PT), 6 Reb, 3 Ast, 3 Stl
Laurence Bowers	16.2	0.90	18 Min, 9 Pts (4-for-5 FG), 5 Reb, 5 Stl, 3 Blk
Miguel Paul	13.9	0.66	21 Min, 14 Pts (4-for-6 FG/3PT), 5 Ast, 3 Stl, 3 TO
Zaire Taylor	13.6	0.52	26 Min, 9 Pts (3-for-5 FG/3PT), 4 Reb, 6 Ast, 3 Stl
Justin Safford	7.2	0.38	19 Min, 10 Pts (3-for-6 FG), 3 Reb, 2 Ast, 2 Blk, 3 TO
Keith Ramsey	6.0	0.27	22 Min, 5 Pts (2-for-2 FG), 4 Reb, 3 Ast, 3 Stl, 4 TO
Mike Dixon	5.0	0.23	22 Min, 9 Pts (4-for-9 FG), 4 Ast
Tyler Stone	0.3	0.07	4 Min, 0 Pts
John Underwood	0.3	0.06	5 Min, 0 Pts
Steve Moore	-0.2	-0.01	13 Min, 0 Pts (0-for-1 FG), 3 Stl
Jarrett Sutton	-0.7	-0.17	4 Min, 0 Pts

Lots of players making lots of contributions here. Obviously Kimmeh and Denmon combined for a good chunk of the offense, at least in the first half, but guys like Taylor, Ramsey, Bowers, and Paul filled up the box score pretty well. None better on a game-by-game basis than Bowers, of course.
Good to see Safford and Paul showing some offensive range, though I'm still mad at Paul for hogging the shots at the end. Okay, I'm not actually mad, but still.
I mentioned less than a week ago that getting out of town might do Kimmeh some good. Strike that. He's doing just fine here.

Keys to the Game Revisited

From Yesterday's preview.

Offensive Rebounds. Well, when you barely miss any shots, offensive rebounds become less of an issue. Regardless, against a relatively big Chattanooga team, Mizzou broke even on the boards. You always want to see a little better than breaking even against lesser competition, but oh well.
Turnovers. Mizzou committed a few too many (18, 4 from Ramsey, 3 from Safford and Paul) but forced a metric ton. Chattanooga was solid offensively in the paint, but they very much struggled to get it into the paint, committing turnovers on 29 of their 77(ish) possessions.
Keith Ramsey. Dude is a FORCE on the full-court press. He looks so much more confident and aggressive on defense this year, which is fantastic. He just needs to do a little better with the ball--his four turnovers negated a good chunk of his defensive success.

Summary

They're 3-0 and unchallenged heading to South Padre, and they've been RIDICULOUSLY entertaining to watch. That's pretty much all we can ask for.

Study Hall: Mizzou vs UT-Pan American

Bill C. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:24 -0000

by L.G. Patterson - AP

27 days ago: Texas-Pan American's Nick Weiermiller, center, passes the ball as he drives past Missouri's Michael Dixon Jr., top, Zaire Taylor, left, and Keith Ramsey during the second half of the first round of a South Padre Island Invitational NCAA college basketball game Sunday, Nov. 22, 2009, in Columbia, Mo. Missouri won the game 100-44. (AP Photo/L.G. Patterson)

View full size photo »

In-depth statistical analysis suggests that Mizzou will win most of the games they play when they pull off a 44-2 first-half run. I know, it's ballsy to say that, but it's statistically true.

NCAA Basketball Stats

Mizzou 100, UT-Pan American 44

	Mizzou	UTPA
Points Per Minute	2.50	1.10
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.33	0.59
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.43	0.85
2-PT FG%	57.4%	26.9%
3-PT FG%	56.5%	30.8%
FT%	58.3%	42.9%
True Shooting %	66.4%	37.8%

	Mizzou	UTPA
Assists	28	10
Steals	17	5
Turnovers	10	22
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	4.50	0.68

	Mizzou	UTPA
Expected Offensive Rebounds	11	14
Offensive Rebounds	9	5
Difference	-2	-9

Reactions:

This was one of those games that help the stats stay steady after a bad game. I mean, 56.5% from 3-point range? 4.50 to 0.68 in BCI? +7 Expected Rebound Margin? Yeah, fun stuff.
Not going to say much about this one, but I guess one area for improvement was offensive rebounding, where Mizzou responded to me saying they could be a very good offensive rebounding team by pulling down only nine. Not that it mattered, but hey, we're always looking for areas of improvement, right?
66.4% True Shooting %. Nice.

Player stats after the jump.

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Kim English	23.6	1.03	23 Min, 25 Pts (9-for-12 FG, 5-for-6 3pt FG), 3 Ast, 3 Stl
Zaire Taylor	16.0	0.64	25 Min, 13 Pts (6-for-8), 3 Reb, 5 Ast, 3 Stl
Laurence Bowers	11.5	0.55	21 Min, 14 Pts (7-for-10), 5 Reb, 2 Ast
Keith Ramsey	9.0	0.45	20 Min, 4 Pts (2-for-3), 5 Reb, 5 Ast, 4 Stl, 2 Blk, 3 TO
Marcus Denmon	8.5	0.45	19 Min, 10 Pts (3-for-5), 3 Reb, 2 Stl
Michael Dixon	8.5	0.37	23 Min, 9 Pts (4-for-7), 7 Ast
Miguel Paul	6.0	0.28	21 Min, 5 Pts (2-for-7), 3 Reb, 6 Ast
Justin Safford	4.5	0.50	9 Min, 7 Pts (2-for-4), 5 Reb
John Underwood	4.0	0.29	14 Min, 1 Pt (0-for-2), 8 Reb, 2 Stl
Jarrett Sutton	3.7	0.74	5 Min, 6 Pts (2-for-4)
Steve Moore	2.0	0.15	13 Min, 4 Pts (2-for-5), 3 Reb
Tyler Stone	1.5	0.21

Welcome to 2009-10, Kimmeh! We've been wringing our hands a smidge about #24, and now he's averaging 15.5 PPG. Good times with small sample sizes. The thing about Kim English is, even when his shot is horribly cold, it still looks pretty coming out of his hands. I always think his shot is going in, and yesterday it did in droves.
Laurence Bowers with a simply effortless 14-5-2 while playing extremely passive basketball in the second half. I've always been in the front car of the Bowers Bandwagon, and even I'm starting to think he may be better than I thought.
Michael Dixon was forcing the issue far too much in the opening minutes, but once he relaxed, he was dominant. And even though we agree that Miguel Paul should probably never shoot, I still can't say enough about how effective our "line change" late in the first half could be when those two come in to run a tiring opponent off the court.
I think it's pretty clear that Marcus Denmon will be taking over J.T. Tiller's "lockdown defender" role next year when Tiller's gone. Really active, accurate hands on defense.
I'm torn about Steve Moore right now. There were 2-3 plays where he looked outstanding--his block and dive into the stands was lovely, and he showed a couple of really nice post moves. But the other 11-12 minutes he was into the game, he just sort of blended into the scenery. He's got about 50 pounds on John Underwood, and I'm sure he'll be the #4 big man after Ramsey-Safford-Bowers for most of this season, but I wonder how long he can fend off Underwood next year, when #35 puts on some weight. And this says nothing of the fact that we're losing one guy (Ramsey) and adding two (Kadeem Green, Tony Mitchell) next season.
From my limited exposure to Tyler Stone, I've got to say that I still really like his presence near the rim, but his range is quite small right now. Needs to work on that jumper.

Keys to the Game Revisited

From Yesterday's preview.

3-Point Shooting. Mizzou: 13-for-23 (56.5%) from 3-point range. UTPA: 8-for-26 (30.8%), 3-for-15 in the first half. The law of averages evened out as they always do, and suddenly Mizzou's overall shooting percentages don't look too bad.
Turnovers. I mentioned that if UTPA had any chance of hanging around, it was because of turnovers. To their credit, they only committed 22 turnovers, which really wasn't too bad. But they forced only 10. They needed about 25 more.
Justin Safford. Safford probably needs to put together some solid performances if he wants to keep his spot in the starting lineup. He responded to the adversity by ... traveling on the game's first possession and, two minutes later, committing another turnover that led to a breakaway dunk. I like Saffy, but he's pretty clearly the #3 big man right now. Again, it doesn't really matter who starts, it matters who plays the most minutes, but still ... Saffy's going to need to put together some good minutes in San Padre.

Summary

What can you say? It's never not fun watching a game like this. It was almost uncomfortable to watch after a while, as Mizzou really was able to do whatever it wanted late in the first half, but with the dunks, smiles, 3's, etc., it was a fun game. Tuesday opponent Chattanooga is not a wonderful team by any means, but they're probably better than the outmanned Broncs, so Mizzou will need to play well again. That said, I'm sure they will.

Study Hall: Mizzou vs UT-Martin

Bill C. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:00:16 -0000

More photos » by L.G. Patterson - AP

about 1 month ago: Missouri coach Mike Anderson directs his team during the first half of an NCAA college basketball game against Tennessee-Martin on Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2009, in Columbia, Mo. Missouri won 83-68. (AP Photo/L.G. Patterson)

Browse more photos »

J.T. Tiller injury aside, this was just about a perfect cupcake game, right? Mizzou got an easy win that was never in question, and they had plenty of those "teachable" moments that coaches like to have. They're 1-0 with plenty to work on.

Mizzou 83, UT-Martin 68

	Mizzou	UTM
Points Per Minute	2.08	1.70
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.06	0.87
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.19	1.10
2-PT FG%	55.1%	39.6%
3-PT FG%	19.0%	35.7%
FT%	70.8%	71.4%
True Shooting %	51.5%	47.7%

	Mizzou	UTM
Assists	14	11
Steals	14	9
Turnovers	21	23
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	1.33	0.87

	Mizzou	UTM
Expected Offensive Rebounds	15	15
Offensive Rebounds	23	15
Difference	+8	0

Reactions:

Why was this only a 15-point game? Look at the shooting stats. That explains it all. Anything below about 1.25 points per shot is poor for this team, and anything below about a 53-54% True Shooting % is the same. While you can't ask for more than a 55% rate on two-point shots, the three-pointers continue to destroy Mizzou's shooting numbers. We'll talk more about this after the jump.
It's early, and it will improve, but 21 turnovers is simply way too many. I like the 14 assists (you typically want more than 14, but considering the number of missed open 3's that would have raised the assist total, I'm okay with it), and obviously 14 steals is lovely, but BCI is dictated by turnovers, and instead of the 2.0 BCI you'd like to see against a mid-major team, Mizzou came nowhere close. Credit UTM for some of this--they really did play pretty solid, active defense--but still. This will improve, but...well, it realy needs to improve.

/brilliant analysis
Taking a look at the Expected Rebounds figures made me feel a lot better about the rebounding situation. Again, the Expected figure comes from the fact that, on average, you will pull down an offensive rebound on 37% of missed 2-pointers, 32% of missed 3-pointers, and 15% of missed free throws. Taking the types of missed shots into account, you can project the number of offensive boards an average team would have pulled. Since UTM missed so many shots, they were bound to grab quite a few offensive boards, and the 15 they grabbed ended up being exactly what was expected. You would hope Mizzou could hold them to under the expected amount, and there were certainly some breakdowns as guys like Steve Moore and Laurence Bowers went for blocks and left their man unattended, but knowing that Mizzou only allowed an average amount (while grabbing a wonderful amount themselves) made me feel better about the rebounding situation.

Player stats after the jump.

Player Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Laurence Bowers	25.7	1.12	23 Min, 16 Pts (6-for-8 FG), 8 Reb (4 Off), 4 Blk, 3 Ast, 2 Stl
Keith Ramsey	17.0	0.77	22 Min, 15 Pts (7-for-11 FG), 7 Reb (3 Off), 2 Ast, 2 Stl
Steve Moore	7.8	0.44	18 Min, 8 Pts, 3 Reb
Marcus Denmon	6.4	0.30	21 MIn, 10 Pts, 6 Reb
Michael Dixon	6.0	0.30	20 Min, 7 Pts
J.T. Tiller	5.9	0.39	15 Min, 6 Pts, 3 Reb, 2 Ast, 2 Stl, 3 TO
Justin Safford	3.9	0.23	17 Min, 5 Pts, 4 Reb, 2 Ast, 2 Blk
Miguel Paul	2.4	0.14	17 Min, 2 Pts, 3 Ast, 2 Stl
John Underwood	1.9	0.97	2 Min, 2 Pts
Zaire Taylor	1.7	0.06	26 Min, 6 Pts, 4 Reb (3 Off), 3 TO
Kim English	-0.4	-0.02	19 Min, 6 Pts (1-for-9 FG), 5 Reb, 2 Stl, 5 TO

I just cannot say enough about how well-rounded Laurence Bowers looked Tuesday night. He showed a smooth shot and the ability to score from anywhere on the court, he showed outstanding hands, passing ability, a good sense for where caroms are going to go on missed shots, and quick, explosive hops, the kind that good shot-blockers have. If you have to crouch down to jump high enough to block shots, you can fall victim to pump fakes. Bowers waits until his man commits to shooting, then explodes up to block the shot. At this point, Bowers has shown hints of being the player we hoped Leo Lyons would be when Leo was a freshman and sophomore, and if he is able to show the same type of potential against some of the bigger names on the non-conference schedule -- Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Illinois -- then this team's ceiling just got a lot higher.

(Meanwhile, at this point I honestly don't care if he starts or not. He got far more minutes than Justin Safford Tuesday night, and I assume he will continue to do so as long as he's playing well, so that's what really matters, more than the token opportunity to play the first 3-4 minutes of the game.)
Leading Adj. GS scorers: Bowers, Ramsey, Moore. We knew this was going to be a bigs-dominated team, right? Ri...right?
Nobody was pressing more than Kim English, but J.T. Tiller was not exactly in control on the offensive end. Meanwhile, Mr. Coffee Zaire Taylor was far from impressive, actually getting outplayed by not only Michael Dixon, but Miguel Paul. Kimmeh had company in the backcourt in terms of underachieving.

(I'll stop there, as I don't want to sound too harsh about what was basically a glorified exhibition game. We know what these guys are capable of, and they'll prove it soon enough.)
To end this section on a positive note, Michael Dixon is already starting to look more in control than he did in the Black & Gold game or the first exhibition game. Remember last year, when Mizzou would inevitably make a huge run with their backups in the last 4-5 minutes of the first half? With Dixon and Paul running the "last 4-5 minutes" lineup, I'm thinking that will be a strength of Mizzou's yet again. And with Tiller out for at least one game, Dixon will get an even larger opportunity to prove what he can do against first-stringers as well.

Keys to the Game Revisited

From Yesterday's preview.

Make some 3's. Fail. Kim English and Marcus Denmon combined to go 2-for-11 from 3-point range, and that was only slightly worse than the rest of the team, which went 2-for-10.
Kim English. If you look up "Pressing" in the dictionary, there's a picture of Kimmeh's face. I have an ongoing theory (I guess it's still in "postulate" stage, actually) that nobody is going to benefit from the South Padre trip more than The Former Mr. Courvoissier. He's trying too hard to get it going, and I think at least part of it has to do with the fact that he's trying to live up to the reputation of him that has formed over the last eight months or so. Get him out of Columbia, in front of a neutral (and probably sparse) crowd, in a new gym, and he might just relax, play ball, heat up. That's what I'm hoping anyway. I'm clearly not worried about how he'll do long-term, but there's no question that he's started 2009-10 in at least a mini-slump.
Rebound. Again, Mizzou didn't rebound well on defense, but they didn't rebound as poorly as it seemed. And with guys like Bowers and Ramsey showing great anticipation skill, this looks like a potentially excellent offensive rebounding squad...

...which is good, considering how many 3-pointers we might be likely to miss this year.

DAMN...meant to end that on a positive. Oh well.

Summary

The positive (and factual) spin on a game like this is simple: we know the guards will show up when it matters, so it was very nice to see Bowers, Ramsey, and Moore playing as well as they did. If Mizzou has a better-than-anticipated inside presence, and if Bowers ends up being Good Leo Squared, then this really is going to be a fun season. Well, it was going to be fun anyway, but it could be really fun. I was going to end this with a "Mancrush: Engage" reference in regard to Bowers, but...well, I think everybody knows where I stand.

Study Hall: Mizzou-NW Missouri State

Bill C. — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:00:29 -0000

Guess it was good to get a bit more of a challenge before the season started. NW Missouri State's shooting kept them close for a while in the first half, and Mizzou's overall shooting kept them from winning by 40. Let's take a look. And yes, the "Start Bowers" movement will not stay quiet for very much longer.

Mizzou 83, NW Missouri State 60

Via The Trib's Nick King

	NW MO St.	Mizzou
Points Per Minute	1.50	2.08
Points Per Possession (PPP)	0.69	0.96
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.18	1.17
2-PT FG%	43.2%	42.6%
3-PT FG%	42.9%	23.5%
FT%	58.8%	65.8%
True Shooting %	51.3%	47.3%

	NW MO St.	Mizzou
Assists	10	9
Steals	4	12
Turnovers	32	18
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	0.44	1.17

	NW MO St.	Mizzou
Expected Offensive Rebounds	12	18
Offensive Rebounds	7	16
Difference	-5	-2

First, the good:

NW MO St. did make some early 3's, but there was little to complain about regarding the defense. Northwest did a solid job of breaking the press, but they would continuously make mistakes in the halfcourt. J.T. Tiller wasn't at his best, but that's fine--we know what he can do.
As we'll see below, Michael Dixon once again looked great, as did Laurence Bowers. Plus, as would be expected against lesser competition, Tiller and Zaire Taylor were able to penetrate at will, and they made some tough finishes.
With other teams being challenged considerably in exhibition games, it's nice to see that a stinker for Mizzou is "only" a 23-point win.

Now, the Red Flag Watch.

Shooting, shooting, shooting. At the end of last season, we mentioned that shooting would potentially be the biggest weakness for Mizzou in '09-'10. And not that we want to draw much from exhibition games, but let's just say that through 80 minutes of exhibition play, that has been initially reaffirmed. Mizzou went a combined 7-for-33 from 3-point range against Truman State and Northwest, and while a lot of those misses were from guys for whom much potential exists (Kimmeh went 3-for-10, Marcus Denmon went 1-for-5), it would have been nicely reassuring to see somebody getting hot there. Zaire Taylor went 1-for-1, and I really do like his stroke, but he's made it pretty clear that he's never going to be a steady, long-distance threat, and even if he could be a threat, he's a distributor first.

In all, Mizzou's got a roster full of guys who can penetrate and finish, but if they offer no consistent outside threat, defenses will bunch together inside and force them to shoot...and when Mizzou's cold, they could get really cold.
Rebounding. Northwest had the smallest team Mizzou will ever see, and taking expected rebounds into account, Mizzou only out-rebounded them by three. Ouch. Against a Truman State team that actually had some size, Mizzou was dominant on the boards, so really those two games cancel each other out, but still ... Mizzou allowed too many opportunities on the boards.
18 Turnovers? Really? Again, not a real concern here yet, but J.T. Tiller had four TO's against Northwest, and overall Mizzou had four players averaging at least 0.10 turnovers per minute, which is unacceptably high: Kim English (0.14), Justin Safford (0.12), J.T. Tiller (0.11), and Steve Moore (0.13). Last year, Leo Lyons led (I guess you'd say "led") the Tigers at 0.10 per minute. It's early in the season, and I'm sure they will shore that up, but ... they really need to shore that up.

Player stats after the jump.

Player Stats

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Laurence Bowers	19.0	0.70	27 Min, 13 Pts, 9 Reb, 3 Blk, 2 TO
Marcus Denmon	14.8	0.70	21 Min, 13 Pts, 5 Reb, 2 TO
J.T. Tiller	11.2	0.51	22 Min, 12 Pts, 5 Ast, 2 Reb, 4 TO
Michael Dixon	9.8	0.75	13 Min, 7 Pts, 3 Reb
Zaire Taylor	8.1	0.32	25 Min, 7 Pts, 4 Reb, 2 TO
Kim English	5.6	0.37	15 Min, 11 Pts, 4 Reb, 2 TO
Keith Ramsey	5.1	0.24	21 Min, 3 Pts, 4 Reb, 2 Stl
Justin Safford	5.0	0.28	18 Min, 8 Pts, 4 Reb, 2 Stl, 3 TO
Miguel Paul	2.8	0.14	20 Min, 5 Pts, 4 Reb, 2 Stl
Steve Moore	1.4	0.13	11 Min, 4 Pts, 2 TO
Jarrett Sutton	-0.2	-0.16	1 Min
Tyler Stone	-1.9	-0.31	6 Min

Must tamp down the "Bowers Must Start" movement...must tamp down the "Bowers Must Start" movement...must tamp down the "Bowers Must Start" movement...
Nice game by Denmon, getting to the line consistently when his outside shot wasn't falling, but again, he won't get away with that against better teams.
Justin Safford really didn't have a game to remember (2-for-6 shooting, 3 turnovers), but his defense still made him a contributor.
Miguel Paul has done nothing to alleviate concerns about his shooting.

Keys to the Game Revisited

From Friday's preview.

Show Up. Mizzou did show up...somewhat. They looked confident and in control, even if they let Northwest hang around a bit too long in the first half. There was never the worry that we were watching a gigantic egg being laid.
Don't Foul. I was reaching for keys in Friday's preview, and predictably this was not much of a concern. Granted, it's nice to see Big 12 refs in mid-season form, calling FIFTY-TWO FOULS in an exhibition game. But only 20 of those were on Mizzou, so I can't say there's much to worry about here. Seriously, though, fifty-two. In an exhibition game.
Tyler Stone. Right after I posted the preview, I read a quote from Mike Anderson saying that the starters were going to get extra playing time to get them ready for Tuesday. Boo to that. John Underwood missed the game due to a death in the family, and Tyler Stone played only six minutes, so ... I whiffed terribly on my "key" player in both exhibition games (Denmon did next to nothing against Truman State). What can I say, I needed the exhibition season too.

Combined Exhibition Stats

	Opp.	Mizzou
Points Per Minute	1.16	2.24
Points Per Possession (PPP)	0.59	1.13
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.24	1.00
2-PT FG%	37.7%	50.5%
3-PT FG%	28.1%	21.2%
FT%	57.1%	68.7%
True Shooting %	42.9%	51.6%

	Opp.	Mizzou
Assists/Gm	7.5	11.5
Steals/Gm	5.0	16.0
Turnovers/Gm	30.5	15.0
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	0.41	1.83

	Opp.	Mizzou
Expected Offensive Rebounds	24	32
Offensive Rebounds	15	40
Difference	-9	+8

Thanks to the Truman game, there was nothing that was going to make these stats look anything less than impressive.

Player	AdjGS*	GmSc/Min	Line
Laurence Bowers	16.9	0.75	22.5 MPG, 13.5 PPG, 10.5 RPG, 2.5 BPG, 1.5 SPG
J.T. Tiller	10.1	0.53	19.0 MPG, 12.5 PPG, 3.0 APG, 2.0 TOPG
Zaire Taylor	9.3	0.41	22.5 MPG, 7.0 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 2.0 SPG
Keith Ramsey	8.6	0.47	1.5 MPG, 6.0 PPG, 4.5 RPG, 2.5 SPG, 1.5 APG
Michael Dixon	8.0	0.53	15.0 MPG, 8.5 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.5 SPG
Kim English	8.0	0.46	17.5 MPG, 10.5 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.0 SPG, 2.5 TOPG
Justin Safford	5.9	0.35	17.0 MPG, 9.0 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 2.0 TOPG
John Underwood	5.8	0.48	12.0 MPG, 4.0 PPG, 5.0 RPG
Marcus Denmon	5.8	0.31	19.0 MPG, 7.5 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 1.5 SPG
Tyler Stone	4.8	0.61	8.0 MPG, 3.5 PPG, 4.0 RPG
Miguel Paul	3.1	0.16	19.0 MPG, 4.0 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 2.5 SPG
Steve Moore	2.9	0.24	12.0 MPG, 3.0 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 1.5 TOPG
Jarrett Sutton	1.7	0.43	4.0 MPG, 2.5 PPG

Must tamp down the "Bowers Must Start" movement...must tamp down the "Bowers Must Start" movement...must tamp down the "Bowers Must Start" movement...

Summary

Thus far, my end-of-season proclamation that Mizzou would be more extreme in 2009-10 -- strengths getting stronger, weaknesses getting weaker -- seems potentially true. Mizzou has the potential to play some insanely good defense, even with the loss of Demarre Carroll. Meanwhile, as strange as it may sound, they may miss Matt Lawrence as much or more than Carroll or Leo Lyons when all is said and done, as shooting could be a major weakness this year.

Or, you know, not. We'll see what English, Denmon, etc., do when the lights are on for real. And we don't have to wait too much longer for those lights to come on.

Mizzou Basketball Preview (Part Five): Industrial Strength

Michael Atchison — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:55:46 -0000

Photo: Parker Eshelman / The Trib

In the late 18th Century, a French gunsmith named Honoré Blanc appeared before a committee of scientists and demonstrated that a functional musket could be assembled by randomly selecting fabricated parts from various piles. While fellow Europeans were dismissive, Thomas Jefferson, American Ambassador to France, was enthralled with Blanc's manufacturing advance, and carried the concept across the Atlantic, where it was adopted by Eli Whitney, who spread the gospel of interchangeable parts stateside, thus hastening the arrival of the industrial revolution.

What, you may ask, does this have to do with Missouri basketball? To which, I respond, what doesn't it have to do with Missouri basketball?

Welcome to Mike Anderson, Year Four. Perfect the pieces, perfect the machine.

As J.T. Tiller begins his senior season, we reach a milestone, a culmination of the new generation. This season, for the first time, every second of every game will be played by athletes who have known no coach but Mike Anderson. By reviving the program and remaking the roster, Mike Anderson now owns Missouri basketball.

All of the players recruited by the previous regime are gone. And though Mizzou will hardly be better off without Leo Lyons and Matt Lawrence, they were molded to fit the program, not manufactured for it. For the first time, every man on the squad was hand-selected by Mike Anderson not for what they are - guard, forward, center - but what they do - defend, disrupt, demoralize. Anderson no longer has a lineup, he has an assembly line.

Tiller and Taylor. Denmon and Dixon. Paul and English. Drive, dish, drop a three.

Ramsey. Safford. Bowers. Moore. Bang, board, block a shot.

Plug them in. Swap them out. Fire up the machine.

Anderson has already changed the program by changing the axis. A vertical game played at the rim is now a horizontal game played on the run. And this season, the industrious evolution continues beyond mere basketball. Anderson won't make substitutions. He'll change lines - Tiller, Taylor and English hit the bench while Denmon, Dixon and Paul hop the boards. Welcome to Hockey Night in Columbia. He won't take time outs. He'll take on fuel and tires. Welcome to the Hardwood 400.

Change the parts, change the game.

What a difference a year makes. Twelve months ago, I wrote that Mizzou hoops had lost its connection with the fans, that it had been completely eclipsed by football, and that it was time to believe again. But last season's Tigers embodied the hoariest Missouri cliché. They were a Show-Me team. They showed everyone through their tenacity, through their triumph, and through their embrace of the fans who embraced them back. Last November, if I had asked which of Missouri's big revenue programs inspired the most faith in you, I know what the answer would have been. And if I asked the same question now, I'll wager the answer might be different.

Recently, Mike DeArmond wrote of how Fight Night at the Athena became the portal from past to future. It's when the bad blood was washed away and the true Tigers stood up. Since that moment, what defines Mike Anderson basketball has come into sharp relief: effort, heart, commitment. These Tigers know how to play, and they love to play. And there's nothing a Missouri crowd loves more.

What happened last year, wasn't just magical, it was methodical. It was a process that peaked earlier than expected. It was also more than that. I'm not much for supernatural explanations for athletic success. Carolina and Kansas don't win because of want-to or momentum or chemistry. They win because they have bigger, better, more skilled players, and coaches who orchestrate success. But watching Missouri's paranormal run through the NCAA Tournament last year led me to believe in the unseen. As the Tigers dissected one of the field's favorites in the sweet sixteen, it struck me that John Calipari probably wouldn't have recruited a single player in a Mizzou uniform. It wasn't that they couldn't play the game, it was that they didn't look the part. Their merits couldn't be measured by a tape or a scale. J.T. Tiller wasn't born to play guard, he was born to play hard. Every player on that team internalized the things that Tiller and Mike Anderson and DeMarre Carroll were and are all about. The conditioning, the will, the dedication. And those things will carry over to this season and beyond. Kim English, Marcus Denmon, Justin Safford, Keith Ramsey - they all have it. The hunger to run one more mile, to shoot one more shot, to dive for one more loose ball, their own internal combustion engines. They might look different, but they're all the same. Cut them open, it's plain to see.

These Tigers have interchangeable hearts.