Turnovers: A plan for the Mizzou basketball defense?

A common refrain in recent Mizzou campaigns has been the team’s ability to score enough to win games. Make no mistake, sometimes that has been a problem. Whether it’s for the casual fan who tune-ins to games whenever they feel like it, the dedicated fan who watches every game, or the data enthusiast, offensive performance is much easier to criticize. Whether it’s scoring stats, efficiency data, or even game type data, there’s a lot of pretty reliable information at our disposal. Comparatively speaking, the defense is more difficult to argue with. But that’s not going to stop us from doing it anyway.

To set the stage for the conversation, it helps to know where the program has been in recent years on the defensive end. Arguably the best catchall defensive stat is Ken Pomeroy’s Adjusted Defensive Efficiency metric. He calculates how many points a team is expected to allow in 100 defensive trips down the floor. A figure of 90 equates to 90 points allowed for every 100 trips and is quite rare. A figure of 110 points allowed per 100 rides, on the other hand, is pretty poor. To arrive at a more accurate stat, the team’s performance is compared to the strength of the competition it faces to generate a final number. Hence “adjusted”. Those numbers are then ranked among the more than 350 teams in Division I. Here’s how Mizzou has fared:

Mizzou’s Adjusted Defensive Efficiency Ranks in Division I

2022: 138^the

2021: 57^the

2020: 71^St.

2019: 51^St.

2018: 43^dr

2017: 97^the

2016: 169^the

2015: 166^the

2014: 137^the

2013: 63^dr

2012: 111^the

2011: 68^the

2010: 18^the

In the last 13 seasons, five Mizzou squads failed to break into the top 100. Only two finished in the top 50! The remaining six have fallen into the “acceptable” category of 51-100, though those performances won’t do much to boost NCAA tournament chances.

To add additional context to the conversation, the following ranges represent the same stat when they only include teams in the same conference AND those numbers accumulated in conference games. Conference performances only. This throws all potential whiteboard noise out of the conference and focuses only on performance in league contests.

Mizzou adjusted defensive efficiency ranges in league play

2022: 12^the (of 14)

2021: 8^the

2020: 9^the

2019: 11^the

2018: 8^the

2017: 12^the

2016: 14^the

2015: 13^the

2014: 13^the

2013: 6^the

2012: 7^the (from 10)

2011: 5^the (of 12)

2010: 3^dr (of 12)

As you can see, Mizzou hasn’t done particularly well at this end of the floor when compared to the league competition. In fact, since moving to the SEC, they’ve finished in the top half of the league in defensive efficiency once in ten seasons. It’s incredibly difficult to win that way, as the Mizzou faithful have witnessed. Despite all the perceived offensive problems, his defensive performance has been at a level that damages his postseason hopes.

With the signing of Dennis Gates, Mizzou is once again restarting what is expected to be a successful venture of reinvigorating the men’s basketball program. We can’t say how that will go. We can see how Coach Gates fared during his time at Cleveland State in these same rankings with the added bonus of his predecessor’s numbers for context: (Note: Dennis Gates coached CSU 20-22 and Dennis Felton coached them from 18 to 19)

Cleveland State Adjusted Defensive Efficiency Ranks in Division I

2022: 227^the

2021: 138^the

2020: 250^the

2019: 309^the

2018: 277^the

It should be noted that playing in the Horizon League has several disadvantages. Namely, access to major major talent and access to major major programming, both of which will understandably affect these rankings. However, he does see a level of immediate improvement that continues toward more marked improvement as time goes on.

Cleveland State Adjusted Defensive Efficiency Rating in League Play

2022: 3^dr (of 12)

2021: 2^{North Dakota} (from 10)

2020: 5^the

2019: 10^the

2018: 8^the

This subset of data really shows how much Cleveland State has improved defensively. Before Gates’ arrival, CSU was a bottom-quartile team in the league in defensive numbers, as was Mizzou. In year 1, that number jumped to the middle of the pack. In years 2 and 3 it jumped back into the top quartile. The immediate change no doubt played into CSU’s ability to win multiple conference championships and make it to the 2021 NCAA Tournament.

Looking deeper, we can identify why those defenses got so much better. Gates’ CSU teams weren’t particularly good at clearing defensive glass or keeping opponents off the free throw line. They’re a lot better than the CSU 18-19 teams and a pretty decent team on shot defense.

The most important factor in this significant change? Profits created! This can be easily explained by looking at the defensive turnover rate of those teams. Defensive turnover rate is simply the number of turnovers created per possession while on defense. If your team generates 1 turnover every 5 defensive possessions, you have a 20% turnover rate. And that’s just what the Gates teams did, and more!

In the year before Gates took office, CSU had a 16.8% defensive turnover rate ranking 278th^the nationally. In conference play alone, the figure was 17.1% and ranked eighth.^the of 10 teams. They just weren’t creating many turnovers on defensive possessions.

Enter: Dennis Gates. Implementing an iteration of the Leonard Hamilton Florida State defense, renowned for its ability to create confusion and speed up offenses that lead to deflections … and turnovers, were results that were immediately apparent.

In Year 1, Cleveland State generated turnovers on 20.6% of defensive possessions that rated 73^dr nationally. In league play, that number grew to 21.1% and ranked the best on Horizon. An immediate improvement of 8^the better!

In Year 2, CSU generated turnovers on 20% of possessions overall and ranked 96th^the nationally. In league play, the number grew again and finished at 21.7%, once again top of Horizon.

In Year 3, CSU generated turnovers on 21.9% of possessions, ranking 28th^the nationally. In the league they finished with 21.8% and were second, with 0.1%.

Causing turnovers was one of the main reasons Gates’ defenses were so effective. Turnover is truly the perfect defensive stop. Creating a set piece change grants your team a dead ball opportunity to retain possession and start their offense without needing to secure a rebound. A live turnover is one in which play does not stop and possession immediately changes hands. Live turnovers frequently lead to highly efficient offensive looks in transition. Not only do they end your opponent’s possession, but you very often receive great offensive opportunities!

But how does this translate to SEC play? It is true that Horizon is not the SEC. However, Coach Gates immediately assembled a strong team in the revenue generation department. Two of his top three turnover creators follow him to Columbia, including D’Moi Hodge, who ranked in the top 20 nationally in individual steal rate. Nick Honor proved to be very effective at stealing possessions during his time at Clemson. Isiaih Mosley has the length and quickness to do the same (see videos below). Aidan Shaw, recently posting his 49-inch vertical max and arm-wielder for days, also projects well in this department. Combined and used in a system that focuses energy on jumping passing lanes and creating diversions, the path to quick defensive switching becomes clearer.

And that is very important. A brief look at SEC league statistics over the past few years shows the importance of steals in overall defensive efficiency ratings. Remember that all of Gate’s teams at Cleveland State had turnover rates above 20%. In 2022, six SEC teams achieved a turnover rate of more than 20% in the league. Five of those teams finished in the top half of the league’s defensive rankings. Since 2013, 42 teams have achieved the 20% turnover creation benchmark and an astonishing 71% have finished in the top half of the league in defensive efficiency.

The message is clear. Teams that cause turnovers usually have an effective defense. Dennis Gates’ Cleveland State University teams have been very good at that, and they got there quickly. Mizzou projects to have players who can cause those turnovers. If Coach Gates is the captain of a team that hits the 20% turnover benchmark, both overall and in conference play, the Tigers could well be playing meaningful basketball come March.