Missouri St. / Tennessee Stats

#1
orangepeopleeater

orangepeopleeater

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,670
Likes
297
#1
I know its hard to compare teams due to conference play, but I thought it was interesting how similar they are

Missouri ST. Offense PPG 69.8 Assists 13.3 Rebounds 33.2
FG% 45.3
Def. PPG 63.1 Assists 10.7 Rebounds 29.7
FG% 44.9

Tennessee Offense PPG 69.9 Assists 13.0 Rebounds 37.6
FG% 43.1
Def. PPG 67.5 Assists 12.2 Rebounds 33.9
FG% 41.8
 
Last edited:
#5
#5
I read somewhere that their turnover numbers were pretty low as well, which is a good sign of a disciplined team. Also have read that he really emphasizes tough defense, which I like.
 
#7
#7
GoBigOrangeVols said:
I read somewhere that their turnover numbers were pretty low as well, which is a good sign of a disciplined team. Also have read that he really emphasizes tough defense, which I like.
Click to expand...

I love a team that goes hard on defense every single game. Not just getting up for the big teams. I really do believe Martin is going to do great things here.
 
#8
#8
lylsmorr said:
I love a team that goes hard on defense every single game. Not just getting up for the big teams. I really do believe Martin is going to do great things here.
Click to expand...


Agreed. That was the major selling point for the Anthony Grant supporters. If CCM's teams bring a tough defense night in and night out I think he will win some support in a hurry.

The early years of the Pearl era were fueled by scrappy defensive efforts too.
 
#9
#9
lylsmorr said:
I love a team that goes hard on defense every single game. Not just getting up for the big teams. I really do believe Martin is going to do great things here.
Click to expand...

They don't play good defense. They play slow-down ball, which keeps the scores low. But in a per-possession sense, Mizzou St. had pretty good offenses and bad defenses the last couple years.

(granted, it's kind of hard to tell exactly what that means, since they had 5 scholarship players when he took over)
 
#10
#10
I'm ready for this guy to come in and teach these boys how to play some disciplined intense defense like pearl brought his first few years
 
#11
#11
lylsmorr said:
I love a team that goes hard on defense every single game. Not just getting up for the big teams. I really do believe Martin is going to do great things here.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A functional halfcourt offense would be welcome, too.
 
#12
#12
lylsmorr said:
I love a team that goes hard on defense every single game. Not just getting up for the big teams. I really do believe Martin is going to do great things here.
Click to expand...

:good!:Agreed. I read on (yes I know 90% of you hate espn) espn an article about this coach. He played at Purdue. Got drafted and played in the NBA 4 years. Then overseas somewhere. He also was an assisstant coach at Purdue for ten years before taking the missouri st. job. The team had a horrible record the year before he took over and he turned that team around had a great record and won that conferences coach of the year award. Just putting the facts out there. I'm not jumping up and down over the hire, as I did not when Dooley was hired. I think Dooley knows what he is doing, but he still has alot of things to prove. All we as fans can do is gripe, fuss, or cross our fingers and hope for the best. GO VOLS!:rock:
 
#13
#13
StepCross said:
They don't play good defense. They play slow-down ball, which keeps the scores low. But in a per-possession sense, Mizzou St. had pretty good offenses and bad defenses the last couple years.

(granted, it's kind of hard to tell exactly what that means, since they had 5 scholarship players when he took over)
Click to expand...

They don't let their opponents shoot a really high percentage. I think he's going to preach D here.
 
#14
#14
lylsmorr said:
They don't let their opponents shoot a really high percentage. I think he's going to preach D here.
Click to expand...

Their opponents shot 48.9 on 2s which is 225th in the country; 34.8 on 3s which is 189th; and 49.1 on effective % which is 211th. There is nothing in their stats to suggest they played defense, but they did well on defensive rebounding because they were never ever interested in running a break.
 
#15
#15
papatomany said:
Their opponents shot 48.9 on 2s which is 225th in the country; 34.8 on 3s which is 189th; and 49.1 on effective % which is 211th. There is nothing in their stats to suggest they played defense, but they did well on defensive rebounding because they were never ever interested in running a break.
Click to expand...

Good points, and these are the stats I had noticed when I posted about their defense before.

But on closer look, their starting wings/guards went 6-1, 6-3, 6-3. In 2007, Tennessee started 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, and allowed a 3-point percentage of 34.8% (identical to Mizzou State's this year, incidentally). Tennessee's defensive 3-point percentage was hellacious in 2010, granted--but that year we started 6-3 at point, and 6-7 on both wings. No wonder nobody could shoot over us.

Mizzou State's defensive 2-point percentage of 48.9% was accomplished with 6-6 at PF and 6-9 at center. Tennessee under Pearl only beat that number twice: in 2010, with 6-9 PF and 6-10 Center (45.7%), and 2011, with 6-8 and 6-10 (46.8%). All Pearl's other years saw 2-point FG% allowed of 50% and up.

His defensive FG% isn't exactly otherworldly at Mizz. St., but he's putting up good numbers considering the short team he's trotting out there.

And 7th nationally in defensive rebound percentage, with that height? Impressive.

I'm warming up to this guy. I want to see actual defense on the actual floor, and I want to see recruiting, but I don't hate the numbers.
 
#17
#17
StepCross said:
Good points, and these are the stats I had noticed when I posted about their defense before.

But on closer look, their starting wings/guards went 6-1, 6-3, 6-3. In 2007, Tennessee started 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, and allowed a 3-point percentage of 34.8% (identical to Mizzou State's this year, incidentally). Tennessee's defensive 3-point percentage was hellacious in 2010, granted--but that year we started 6-3 at point, and 6-7 on both wings. No wonder nobody could shoot over us.

Mizzou State's defensive 2-point percentage of 48.9% was accomplished with 6-6 at PF and 6-9 at center. Tennessee under Pearl only beat that number twice: in 2010, with 6-9 PF and 6-10 Center (45.7%), and 2011, with 6-8 and 6-10 (46.8%). All Pearl's other years saw 2-point FG% allowed of 50% and up.

His defensive FG% isn't exactly otherworldly at Mizz. St., but he's putting up good numbers considering the short team he's trotting out there.

And 7th nationally in defensive rebound percentage, with that height? Impressive.

I'm warming up to this guy. I want to see actual defense on the actual floor, and I want to see recruiting, but I don't hate the numbers.
Click to expand...

Good stuff Step. Make that a new thread.
 
#19
#19
StepCross said:
It's a little on the technical side, innit? Most UT fans have no patience with detailed numbers like that, IMO. But if the demand is there, happy to do it.
Click to expand...

If they don't read it then that's their problem. It's good info on his defensive numbers.
 
#23
#23
StepCross said:
Good points, and these are the stats I had noticed when I posted about their defense before.

But on closer look, their starting wings/guards went 6-1, 6-3, 6-3. In 2007, Tennessee started 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, and allowed a 3-point percentage of 34.8% (identical to Mizzou State's this year, incidentally). Tennessee's defensive 3-point percentage was hellacious in 2010, granted--but that year we started 6-3 at point, and 6-7 on both wings. No wonder nobody could shoot over us.

Mizzou State's defensive 2-point percentage of 48.9% was accomplished with 6-6 at PF and 6-9 at center. Tennessee under Pearl only beat that number twice: in 2010, with 6-9 PF and 6-10 Center (45.7%), and 2011, with 6-8 and 6-10 (46.8%). All Pearl's other years saw 2-point FG% allowed of 50% and up.

His defensive FG% isn't exactly otherworldly at Mizz. St., but he's putting up good numbers considering the short team he's trotting out there.

And 7th nationally in defensive rebound percentage, with that height? Impressive.

I'm warming up to this guy. I want to see actual defense on the actual floor, and I want to see recruiting, but I don't hate the numbers.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your analysis, but if I had to guess based on these numbers (and, not having seen them play, I DO have to guess), I'd say the philosophy is simply, "There are a lot of bad shooters in the world, so we're going to let you take a shot, but we won't let you have TWO shots." I can see this, but I don't much like this approach. I don't think that works against Ohio State for instance, and probably not against Florida. There ARE a lot of bad shooters in the world, but invariably teams get hot and actually defending them is the only thing that might slow them down.
 
#25
#25
papatomany said:
I appreciate your analysis, but if I had to guess based on these numbers (and, not having seen them play, I DO have to guess), I'd say the philosophy is simply, "There are a lot of bad shooters in the world, so we're going to let you take a shot, but we won't let you have TWO shots." I can see this, but I don't much like this approach. I don't think that works against Ohio State for instance, and probably not against Florida. There ARE a lot of bad shooters in the world, but invariably teams get hot and actually defending them is the only thing that might slow them down.
Click to expand...

You could be right, but check out Purdue's FG% defense. Seems that the philosophy is to challenge every shot. Purdue was 9th nationally in 2-point FG% defense last year, and they were pretty high this year, too (in a hurry atm, can't look it up).

Again, I think the problem with FG% D for MoState this year was mostly height.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top