Welcome everyone to The Verdict, Preseason Edition. In this series we’re going to be looking at a host of topics in the lead up to the much anticipated 26-27 Tigers Basketball season. Instead of going through the nitty-gritty of every single player as I’ve done in past Player Previews, I’m taking a bit of a step back and looking at some larger scale topics for Mizzou’s team. In this installment we’re going to be looking at Mizzou’s defensive questions. For this series we’re assuming that all fifth-year seniors will be granted eligibility.
In perhaps one of the more ironic twists of fate, Mizzou Basketball has demonstrated defensive struggles the past four seasons. For years under the prior regime, the complaint was the converse. Sure, Mizzou was sound on the defensive end, but the games were “BORING.” Well, boring isn’t always bad. There’s a beauty to effectively doing simple things well. Yet being too one-sided eventually led to the demise of the Cuonzo Martin administration. To have long-term staying power, you need to be a well-rounded bunch.
Mizzou’s recent struggles on the defensive side of the court are also notable since they run counter to Dennis Gates’ apprenticeship in Tallahassee. Leonard Hamilton was known for teams with brute force and defensive brilliance. The Tigers learned firsthand in a tournament game when their future leader sat on the Seminoles bench in 2018. That Florida State team slowly squeezed the remaining life out of Martin’s group and closed the book on Michael Porter Jr.’s abbreviated tenure. Something they did on a regular basis.
Storylines aside, anyone who suggests that Mizzou’s point suppression is lacking has an agreeable ear here. In this piece we’re going to look at both the lack of defensive excellence – which is uncontroverted – and a potential cause. After a thorough review of the data and having watched every single minute of the Dennis Gates era over four seasons, my conclusion is simple.
They lack a true defensive identity.
Sure, there are smaller issues, namely issues with properly rotating, needless fouls, reckless contests of jump shooters and difficulties securing attainable defensive boards, to name just a few. I think more than any of those individually, the absence of identity is what’s causing a feeling that wins were left on the table. Consider the following data that led me to this fairly obvious conclusion.
We know that Mizzou’s top line numbers haven’t been great. But they have improved! The first two seasons under this regime were bad with a capital B. The last two have seen marked improvement but still middling overall results. Their adjusted defensive efficiencies have ranked 82nd and 68th in consecutive years after finishing around 180th best. A big part of that is to be owed to the decided improvement in size and skill across the roster. But when we dig through the data, we can also see other points of intrigue.
This past year Mizzou’s defensive turnover rate plummeted. A hallmark of prior seasons was the ability to create turnovers and cash them in for points on the break. The film certainly confirms this. The 2026 tigers did a “better” job on the defensive glass, fouled a little bit less and did solid work at preventing and defending two-point shots. But in exchange, they yielded the ability to generate takeaways and gave teams the P.I.N. for a three-point line ATM. When you watched them, you saw this in action. The Tigers employed more of a gap-minded defensive half court approach and rarely pressed. The trade-offs were easily spotted.
Compare and contrast to years one and two and you’ll see a wildly different picture. Mizzou was excellent at creating turnovers but couldn’t rebound to save their lives. They fouled opponents with reckless abandon and gave up way too many close-range opportunities. Statistically speaking, they were the polar opposite. Year three, Dennis Gates’ best team to date, offered something in the middle. Not quite a half-court minded group, nor a balls-to-the-wall pressing team, simply one that was serviceable at both. You see a maddening lack of consistency at doing any one thing well over time.
Employing Synergy’s more advanced possession tracking data we see a similar picture.
Mizzou all but abandoned pressure defense in 2026 after seeing a rapid reduction in 2025. We’ve seen Mizzou’s rate of man-to-man defense creep up in recent years while seeing their zone defense reduce. Some may say this is a reaction to the more sizeable and athletic rosters we’ve seen in later seasons, and I think there’s some truth to that. I think the better explanation is that they’re searching for something, anything, that will work.
I recall someone saying that strategy is variable, but identity is concrete. That is sage advice and relevant to this conversation. It’s clear that Dennis Gates wants to assemble a sizeable roster with well-above average height and athleticism just like his mentor, Leonard Hamilton. He has that in spades for this upcoming season. The hard part of the identity question has been solved. The question becomes: what does he do with it?
Your identity is best shown on the defensive end. The non-negotiable aspects of every outing that should be immune from external factors. What are you willing to allow to achieve that goal? Leonard Hamilton’s bunch was a rugged group that excelled at getting hands to balls, either through tipped passes, steals or blocked shots around the rim. They were willing to allow a larger portion of misses to be rebounded in exchange. And you know what, it worked pretty well! It was a hedged bet that paid off.
More importantly, there was little question going into a season what you’d see. They too toggled between man and zone looks with varying pressure applications, but you knew the key components – getting hands to balls and overwhelming teams with size and athleticism – were always going to be there. Their game-to-game strategies may vary, but their identity never did. Over time they turned in many performances reminiscent of what they did to Mizzou in NCAA Tournament play.
For Mizzou, the soul-searching needs to be performed. Yes, you’ve got an elite group in terms of height, quickness and leaping ability. How will it be employed? What are you willing to concede? What will you never concede? Those foundational questions must have answers. Those answers must be recognizable on a nightly basis. We’re talking complete and total buy-in for whatever route they choose. From my seat, this team is built to play the Seminoles’ strategy. They LOOK like a Leonard Hamilton team. Whether they opt for that route or go another way is less important. They simply cannot afford to lose valuable possessions in determining who they are and what they want to be.