Lineup Performance: Missouri at Vanderbilt

Ahead of each Missouri game, I conduct a rudimentary routine: visit four analytic sites, look at the forecasted point total and margin, and average them. 

It’s a way to set an objective and appropriate expectation for what might unfold. And entering last Saturday, those models – each with their methodology – expected the Tigers to escape Vanderbilt with an 83-80 victory. And then Tyler Nickel became a confounding factor.

Had his 3-ball in the waning seconds thumped off the rim, MU would have prevailed 81-78. 

The game flow also aligned with what metrics told us. The Tigers and Commodores each excel at forcing turnovers. Vandy’s a streakier jump-shooting team. Missouri, however, can be susceptible at the rim. Yet the Commodores struggle against opponents with more size and brawn.

So, this game conformed to expectations. 

However, for as objective as data can be and the context it provides, basketball games still involve people. And their behavior isn’t always predictable. Like Dennis Gates not calling a timeout as Mark Mitchell backed toward the sideline. Or Trent Pierce ball-watching a bit too long and allowing Nickel, who specializes in relocation shooting, to shake loose. 

And Vanderbilt deserves due credit for the 97-93 victory at Memorial Gymnasium. The ‘Dores, who shoot 32 percent from beyond the arc, knocked down six of their final seven attempts from deep, including two in the final 45 seconds. Meanwhile, coach Mark Byington did what any savvy coach does: he dialed up play calls that exploited an MU weakness and dared the Tigers to adapt.

On Saturday, the Tigers’ automatic switching in pick-and-rolls proved vulnerable soft tissue. Vandy leveraged it to create favorable mismatches, resulting in quality looks that staked them to an early lead in overtime. Those are the adaptations an algorithm can’t see – even if we’ve noticed the Tigers’ rim defense slipping. Byington noted it, too. It also proved the edge in a game that put a serious dent in MU’s push for a double bye at the SEC tournament. 

In terms of game flow, the substitution pattern reinforces Saturday’s nip-and-tuck nature. The exception: a 14-4 stretch to close the first half for Mizzou. Over roughly five minutes, the Commodores, who were just 1 of 13 from deep in the opening 20 minutes, settled too much beyond the arc. Meanwhile, MU ground out a 7-0 spurt to enter the break with a nine-point lead. 

Overall, Gates didn’t deviate much from his standard script. The only modifications saw him bypass Marques Warrick in the second half, and Tony Perkins wasn’t seen again after the 12:15 mark in the second half. Per Study Hall, Perkins had a rough go of it offensively, while Caleb Grill, Anthony Robinson, and Tamar Bates each had stretches where they powered the offense. 

Unsurprisingly, MU rode with that backcourt trio for more than nine minutes over the latter stages of the second half. And with under three minutes left, each member also notched a steal to siphon possessions from the ‘Dores as the Tigers built a 79-75 cushion. 

But the sore spot was at the four. Vandy homed in on running bluff actions to get its big man switched onto a guard. Then, the ‘Dores had their hybrid forward set a ball screen, banking on MU automatically switching Pierce, Crews, or Mark Mitchell onto AJ Hoggard or Jason Edwards. 

The result was a stretch four trying to stay in front of a point guard, a big burying a MU guard, and off-ball defenders getting put into rotation too easily. Sometimes, the Tigers will triple-switch to troubleshoot problems. That didn’t happen Saturday.

Would deploying Marcus Allen, who didn’t see action, make a difference? I’m not sure.

Hoggard is rugged enough to bully his shoulders past bigger defenders, and Edwards possesses burst to achieve early separation. Like the rest of our brain trust, I thought the problem was passively switching screens where the on-ball defender didn’t face any struggle to stay in front. Given that Vandy’s prone to live-ball turnovers, I’m surprised MU blitz PNRs. That tactic worked exceptionally two weeks earlier at UGA. 

You’ve probably seen the lineup graphic already. I posted it to the forums and social media channels. It’s not kind to Pierce. A three-minute stretch overlapping the end of regulation and the start of overtime was brutal. He lost Nickel for the game-tying 3. Then, automatic switching put him in a bind trying to stay in front of Hoggard on a rim attack. And later, he helped off the baseline, creating space for Chris Manon to bolt to the rim and draw a foul. 

That’s a minus-7 on three plays alone. Pierce’s struggles were both acute and the result of some schematic choices that were beyond his control. Still, it’s hard not to feel frustration when looking at a group positing a minus-16 mark in 11 minutes.

Conversely, the quintet that finished plus-11 requires context. That lineup was on the floor during the run that ended the first half. After the break, though, it only went plus-1 in a little more than two minutes. When we strip out the top two lineups – both outliers – the Tigers come out a plus-1 for the day. 

Both sides notched kill shots in the first half. Each side had 7-0 spurts after the break, too. Across almost every lineup, MU was able to generate quality possessions patiently. 

Early on, it was Grill flying off screens. When Vandy tasked Manon with tracking Grill, it allowed Bates to bully defenders off the bounce. To start the second half, MU used sets to tee up Mitchell in short rolls or empty-side attacks against slower bigs or smaller guards. And ahead of the stretch run, Robinson tapped into his recent mojo as a pull-up shooter. 

Those individual performances are at odds with what plus-minus tells us. Again, though, that’s a team stat. If you take away the time spent in a minus-16 lineup, Bates (+7), Grill (+7), and Mitchell (+3) have figures that more closely align with their stat lines. That’s not to say they were flawless, though.

Mitchell committed five turnovers. Grill, who went 2 of 8 after the break, should have deferred more. Yet Bates could have been more assertive in looking for offensive opportunities down the stretch.�

Still, Pierce’s struggles are undeniable. He was a non-factor on offense, struggled to make a difference in the rebound column, and only cashed in one of three freebies after being fouled in the corner. There were also a couple of defensive breakdowns earlier in the game, but MU’s offensive proficiency easily papers over them. Meanwhile, Crews wasn’t particularly impactful as a spacer, and like Pierce, Vandy made sure to pick on him in switches. 

This is also life on the road in the SEC this season. Had MU held on, it would have been easy to chalk up defensive struggles, paltry bench production, and late-game wobbles as a fact of life when you enter hostile territory. 

Unfortunately, Vandy, which had a 4.9 percent chance to win when Mitchell’s heel clipped the sideline, put on a clinic in late-game execution.