Read the full transcript of Mizzou beat writer Eli Hoff ‘s chat

Eli Hoff: Hello, all, and happy Thursday! Welcome to another Mizzou subscriber chat. It’s been a few weeks since we’ve done one of these, and for that I apologize. The logistics of postseason basketball tournaments and sitting down for these chats was tough to wrangle. But we’re all here now, and we’ve got plenty to discuss. Straight to your questions!

JohnL: Good morning Eli-As always, your coverage both in print and with the pods of MIZZOU is #1. No doubt. Additionally, the analytics you provide give us a newer perspective into the success or failures of a season and games. However, the one area I do take issue with you on is your approach to criticizing coaches. Specifically, your recent articles delving into the season ending slump of the BB team centered on the numbers and very little on the poor performance by Coach Gates. In my opinion, all fingers need to point to Coach. He was out coached! He didn’t have his team ready to play. His in-game player mix was bad and tardy. Quite frankly, he coached like a rookie. The failure was as much about his coaching slump as it was about the team’s slump. Heads-up, the MU powers and boosters are big-time proponents of success across all programs and will not be passive about the program just making NCAA post season as the metric for success. Gotta win. Please advise.

Hoff: Thanks, John. Always appreciate you reading. 

I’ll say this on the criticizing coaches front, and this is maybe a little more “inside journalism” than you were seeking when you asked this question. Generally, I try to toe the line between analyzing and opining with my writing. As a beat writer, it’s my job to do the former and leave the latter to our crew of columnists. So in the wake of the Drake loss, I wrote about some of the numbers that showed why Mizzou tailed off so strongly at the end of the season. There’s analysis there, but I leave it up to you — the readers — to ultimately assign blame. Benjamin Hochman wrote after the game that he thinks Dennis Gates deserves that blame. I’m not going to say you’re wrong for blaming Gates, just like I won’t say you’re wrong if you blame some players for not playing up to the level they could/should have in that matchup. For someone in my position, the blame game is a slippery slope because it’s almost always opinion. I might lean toward that a little more in these chats, but in my coverage I leave that toward the folks whose job it is to have opinions and argue for them. I hope that makes some sense. If it doesn’t — or it creates other questions — do feel free to follow up and I’ll explain as best I can.

Russ: Good morning, Eli. I maybe going in a different direction here. But I was surprised when Wisconsin hired Robin Pingeton as their next WBB coach. I’m glad she’s landed on her feet, but it seems a ‘head scratching” hire for Wisconsin. It sounds like it’s struggling program, and will be a challenge to turn around. Have you heard any feedback on this?

Hoff: I’m happy for Coach Pingeton, but yes, it’s not the kind of job I was expecting her to land. It’s not like Wisconsin is a women’s basketball powerhouse — the last time the Badgers finished a season above .500 was 2010-11 — but it is still a Big Ten program. I got calls from some folks in Madison this week who were just as surprised as I was. Her record over the last 4-5 seasons in Columbia wasn’t exactly stellar, either. My hunch is that she was a rather affordable candidate for Wisconsin, which might not be looking to invest all that much in women’s hoops right now. If that is the case, then it’s low risk for the Badgers (despite the head-scratching, as you mention, going on there this week) and a nice landing spot for Pingeton.

Florida Al: Good morning, Eli! Even before the Drake loss I had uncomfortable flashbacks to the Princeton loss two years ago. Similar style…a smart, patient, undersized team that completely confounded the Tiger’s game plan, leaving them a frustrated mess offensively and defensively. While I give Coach Gates credit for the remarkable turnaround from last season, he clearly had no answers once other teams got to study game film and figured out how to beat them. This was clearly evident in the rematch games we lost to opponents we dominated the first time. Their half court offense was a mess late in the year. When we had played well, we were moving the ball around the perimeter with a lot of hand offs and screens. The last part of the season that devolved into helter skelter street ball with forced shots after careless dribble penetration. How concerned should we be about that aspect of Gates’ coaching?

Hoff: I’d add this to what Mizzou saw from other teams late in the season: Desperation. Vanderbilt, Arkansas and Oklahoma were fighting to stay in the NCAA Tournament discussion when the Tigers got those rematches. Against Drake, of course, it was win or go home. I’m not sure MU played with the requisite level of urgency until its second-half run that cut Drake’s lead to 1 point. I suppose the Mississippi State win in the SEC Tournament should be mentioned here somewhere, but I think urgency/desperation is a relevant factor.

And yes, it does seem that the Missouri offense devolved into a lot of isolation play late in the season. I’ve looked hard for the stat that is just the raw number of passes per possession or before a given shot, but can’t find it out there — I’d like to confirm that hunch that there were fewer in the home stretch of the season. 

The Tigers’ game plan going into the Drake affair was to play faster than the Bulldogs wanted to, and try to use the size advantage. I don’t think anyone would’ve argued that was a bad idea going into the game. Then Mitchell went 1-7 from the field (before a garbage time bucket), Robinson went 0-5, Grill went 1-7 from 3. That’s not me absolving the coaching/game plan, it’s just me saying execution has to be part of the equation too.

But yes, some questions and concern is fair. Both of Gate’s NCAA Tournament runs at MU have been cut short by a mid-major that Mizzou should have beat. He can’t sacrifice regular season performance just to build a team to beat a Princeton or Drake in the tournament, but there can’t be a drop-off like there was this year — or an early peak. Seeing a season all the way through, to me, feels like the priority moving forward.

Questions: MBB: I know this isn’t really fair to Gates, and his system is more than Leonard Hamilton ball, but why is Hamilton held in such high esteem from a strictly basketball perspective by Gates? In the NCAA Tournament Hamilton usually brought great athleticism, size and depth but still his record is only 14 and 11, and he never made it past the Sweet 16. At this point I’d take a Sweet 16, but still, is that what you want to model your program after?

Hoff: I’m not sure how much Hamilton’s basketball system is what Gates holds in such high esteem. When I think back on what parts of Hamilton’s career Gates has talked about most fondly, it’s the program building: relationships with players, development, depth. I’m sure there’s some basketball acumen that’s part of that, but it’s not what Gates most frequently brings up about Hamilton, anyway.

FSU strikes me as a good developmental model. Scottie Barnes, Devin Vassell, Malik Beasley, Terance Mann, Patrick Williams and Jonathan Isaac are all active NBA guys. That’s a lot more production than Mizzou can claim, and active players doesn’t account for everyone Hamilton has developed.

The component of this philosophy I’ve wondered about more recently — on a couple of different fronts — is depth. First, how it ties to the postseason, where as you mention this model doesn’t have especially proven results. The norm among basketball teams (college and pro) is to shorten the rotation in the postseason. Instead of playing 9-10 guys to ease the burden over the bulk of the season, play your best 7-8 when it matters most. 

Depth can be really, really helpful to have, in case injuries come up, or just to push players internally as they work to be part of the best 7-8. But at what point does the quality of a season come down to players 1-2-3 in the rotation versus 9-10-11? March, right? Look at MU-Drake. Bennett Stirtz was the best player on the floor. We could debate who the second, third, fourth best players in the game were, but Drake’s three most important players (Stirtz, Banks, Manyawu) were better than Mizzou’s (Mitchell, Grill, Bates). It didn’t matter than the Tigers could turn to T.O. Barrett as a quality third point guard because they didn’t have two good point guards ahead of him that day. Having “break glass in case of emergency” players is great, but it takes 20 minutes of game time to know it’s time to break the glass. At that point, when there are 20 minutes left in the season, the damage might already be done. 

It’s worth noting, and I wrote this in my story afterward, but Ben McCollum took a shot at depth for depth’s sake in his postgame presser. I don’t think he was directing it toward Gates, but it sure did show the difference in attitudes toward it.

The second front: Roster limits. Assuming the House settlement will be approved in a couple of weeks, basketball teams can have 15 scholarship players, which is a slight increase. I’d be shocked if Gates doesn’t use all of that. He’s joked (and I’m not sure how much it’s a joke) he’d roster more like 20 if he could. But there’s just no way to keep 15 players worthy of floor time happy, because you can’t give that many players enough floor time to keep them happy. There are 200 minutes to hand out in any given game. That’s the limit, and while it’s nothing new, these roster limits are new.

I apologize for the long-winded and scatterbrained answer, but the value/shortcomings of depth has been on my mind over the last week. It’s a very big picture thing, but relevant to your point about models for a program and what postseason success is possible.

Kevin: Any indication of what positions Drinkwitz will be targeting in the Spring portal? I would assume they’d be interested in adding some experience at receiver and on the o-line, maybe a D tackle as well. Is that how you’re seeing it?

Hoff: Drinkwitz hasn’t done media since the start of spring ball (and most of us were on the road the last two weeks anyway) so I haven’t asked him recently, but I’d assume O-line is the position of interest on offense. Probably someone with some guard-tackle versatility for the sake of competition. Mizzou wound up not making a move at D-tackle during last spring’s window, and I think some of that was just how the market shook out. Maybe it looks different this year, but I don’t think they’ll spend just to spend at that position. Mizzou also expects to bring in another punter and long snapper. Besides that, it’ll be best available if they see someone they like come in the portal, or one-out, one-in looking for replacements.

Roy Hobbs 3.0: A post-script on the Aidan Shaw Era, please? General takeaways of why this particular player never quite became a bonafide, game-in/-out starter, scorer, contributor, etc.?

Hoff: There’s no doubting Shaw’s athleticism. I mean, watch him jump. But he never seemed to develop a jumper or reliable-enough handle to be an offensive hub. Defensively, he had the rim-protection chops, but his rebounding positioning/leverage often looked to be slightly off to me. He seemed to be very well-liked in the locker room, and was always pleasant when I talked to him. Gates wished him well after he entered the portal, too. Seems like overall, his development just stalled or never reached an SEC level.

DCG: Hi Eli: So, I imagine you’ll get a lot of Gates comments today, and deservedly so. This is twice now that his team has been picked apart in the tourney by a much lower, much less athletic seed. Gates has been been better than I thought he would be, but my main concern about him remain: he’s a disciple of Leonard Hamilton, who has always been considered a good recruiter of athletes, but a poor coach. Hamilton teams could always pressure the ball, but if you could withstand the heat, you could pick them apart. They could conjure magic against high-ranked teams, but then they would never put it together for a full season. The offense often looked like a mess against anyone who could stay in front of them. Any of this sound familiar? A nearly 40-year coaching career, one elite eight. This three years in a row that we’ve seen the defense be boom or bust–get turnovers or get torched. So, I’m not sold. I see glimpses, which are starting to feel like fool’s gold rather than the real thing

Hoff: More good thoughts on the Hamilton model there. 

And the emphasis on generating turnovers is another big-picture thing that’s interesting to think about. When it works, it works so well. But when it doesn’t, you’ve got a player like Robinson picking up two reach-in fouls in 30 seconds, or players fouling while have to rotate/deal with size mismatches because of switches. An issue for Mizzou as the season wore on was converting turnovers into offense, too. That was such an effective bridge for scoring early in the season, then faded in potency late.

DCG: Completely agree. It’s like the Alabama game was this team’s Superbowl, and they never really played with that intensity again for the rest of the season.

Hoff: The quote of the season, in my eyes, came from something assistant coach Kyle Smithpeters told me in the locker room after beating Mississippi State in the SEC Tourney. Everybody was in a good mood and thought the team had turned a corner after grinding out a much-needed win, but this summed up what changed around/after the Bama win:

“We had to learn some lessons. We are very talented. We are very good. But we’re not gonna be able to walk out there and just go through the motions and get wins. People want to beat us. We’re not sneaking up on anybody. We finally, I think, came to that realization: that we’re gonna have to go out there and to things the dirty way, the hard way again. That’s what we were able to do. You go back and look at Alabama: We scored 110 points and win a game in that type of fashion. It’s gonna do something to your head. I think our guys, it just took them a little bit of time to come to the realization that, hey, we’re going to get back to the old-school stuff.”

NWS: After the A&M game coach Gates said he should have called a time out and set his defense. After the game tying 3 and overtime loss at Vandy he the same thing. One time is an error. You make the same mistake again that’s a trend. That I find worrisome.

Hoff: Here’s what I’ll say to that (and it’s not me saying he handled those situations correctly, to be clear): Gates trusts his players. A lot. He wants them to play with their instincts, and he invests a lot of energy into coaching up those instincts. So in the Vandy game, for instance, I believe that he believed the players just would know what to do in that situation. They evidently didn’t. It’s a great thing for a coach to have trust in his players. But sometimes you still have to use all your timeouts as an insurance policy and make sure they know the drill. 

Aaron: When looking back at the Drake game, I know McCollum did a masterful job in winning the game, but I do think it’s unfair to say that Gates did a horrible job. I thought the game of making sure there were paint touches was a good one and one of the reasons why they were able to get to the FT line. While I would have liked him to go big more with Gray and Mitchell down low, I just think the shots were just not falling that game and it could be as simple as that.

Hoff: And to your point: Mizzou was 23-26 at the FT line, Drake was 12-14. You couldn’t realistically have that particular aspect of the game play out any better for the Tigers. 

Yes, sometimes the shots just don’t fall. The Warrick 3 when MU had closed the gap is a testament to that idea. Some of the players, and Gates too, talked about the ball not bouncing their way afterward. Now, that can be a way of deflecting from the real issues at times, but it’s not fair to ignore the randomness of some of this. That’s what happens after a season-ending loss, in any sport. You’re stuck with months of thinking yourself in circles as to what happened and what could’ve/should’ve gone differently.

DCG: I don’t think there’s a universal right/wrong about depth. I thought McCollum’s comments were a bit arrogant. Consider that Dean Smith loved depth, often playing nine or more in the first half of games. He tended to shorten the rotation in the second half. Nolan Richardson won a title with his 40 minutes of Hell, all out full court pressure that required him playing 10 of more guys consistently. Playing a lot of guys doesn’t mean that you can’t play some guys 30+ minutes in a game. Meanwhile, I was always dumbfounded by Coach K, with a entire bench of McDonald’s all-Americans, often only playing 6 or 7 guys any real minutes for pretty much the whole season, but you can’t argue the results. I think versatility is more valuable than overall depth. Players who can do multiple things well (guard different positions, score at different levels) are really valuable. Mizzou really didn’t have that. The closest thing was probably Mitchell, but as we saw time and again, if you had an athletic big who could stay in front of him, he wasn’t effective.

Hoff: That’s the key right? There’s not going to be a blanket answer for any one of these tactical/roster philosophies. Just about any system can work with the right personnel or fall apart against the wrong kind of opponent. If there were a perfect way to do it, everybody would do it and then it wouldn’t be perfect. 

To your versatility point: One of the best things this Mizzou team had going for it was added length across the board. That seemed to be a real positive in a lot of situations. 

And on Mitchell: Him being consistently effective is my way-too-early barometer for what next year’s team will be. The program rebuild that happens every offseason now will proceed with Mitchell and Robinson as the centerpieces. Sure, there will be a couple of key portal adds to come, but as far as returners go, they’re the priorities. So with that in mind, finding ways for him to be the best player on the floor more often than not will be important. Handling athletic bigs who he can’t shed off the dribble will be part of that.

Aaron: As a beat writer for Mizzou, who would you personally prefer as a coach. One that provides access to practices, assistant coaches and players, but delivers subpar results or one that provides limited to no access to practices, assistants or players but his teams regularly compete effectively with the elite programs in the nation.

Hoff: A winning team always helps because people are more inclined to read about wins/success than losses. But I’d love to have this job in the good old days of access, when you could watch entire practices and talk to more people individually. It’s not that I am interested in sharing their gameplans with the world. It’s that I could give y’all better stories about how a given team comes together, about how a point of emphasis in a practice played out in a game, about the personalities and stories in a locker room. And it would decrease the need for speculation — something I hate doing in this job — which would be a net benefit for everyone. So for the sake of the stories I could tell, I’d take the access. 

Todd H: Good day to you Eli. Thank you for your tremendous coverage of Mizzou hoops this season..

When if ever will Mizzou ever get one of those 7ft guys that are so in vogue these days that can both rebound and hit 3s? You know, the type of players that always seem like they were specifically designed to kill Mizzou? Okay, maybe this one gets through!

Hoff: Thanks, Todd. That one came through just fine. 

Missouri thought they had one in Vanover last year. They think they might have a “unicorn” in Trent Burns, though I’ll need to see that in a game to really buy into the hype. The reality is that proven, versatile big men don’t grow on trees. They’re also rarely available in the portal because any team that has one wants to keep him. And then they are available… they come at a premium. So while that’s on every program’s wishlist, it just isn’t realistic for many to get one. The market is especially tough with centers.

DCG: Again, totally agree. Mitchell needs to become a better shooter. If he can just be a consistent 15-foot shooter (ideally a good 3-point shooter), then you have to honor that, and then his quickness with the ball becomes more effective against those athletic bigs. He also needs a more efficient post-up game where he can score without the dribble. Jump hooks are his friend.

Hoff: And by the end of the season, the scouting report was out on him in the post. A lot of going back, left and into that hook.

What made me aware of that was a Youtube video, funnily enough, put out there by another college program’s GA about Missouri. He made videos about almost every March Madness team to show how a college program would assemble their quick scout of another team, their plays and their players’ tendencies. DCG, I think you especially would find it interesting, but a lot of people will get something out of these 18 or so minutes.

Lu: As a Mizzou hoops fan, I don’t want to see a ton of portal additions this year. There’s some underclassmen I’d love to see get more run next year. Is it fair to want to see some development or in this new era of CBB is it imperative to reload and get the best player out of the portal?

Sort of the same thought thread…if we do get someone, I’d love for it to be a big man who is not completely inept on the offensive end of the floor. However, those players don’t seem to grow on trees. I know we don’t really play this way, but would you expect a returning player or transfer to get a larger share of minutes at the “five.” In other words will we see more of a Josh Gray type or Trent Burns/Pierce type playing there?

Hoff: To your first question, it depends: Some programs will try to churn out the best rotation every single year, and it might not allow for much development. Some will be fine with going into a “transition year” (sorry, Cards fans, for bringing out that phrase) to let some players develop. Ideally, it probably looks a lot like Mizzou’s rotation did this year, actually. A couple of first-year guys who contribute, a couple of returners who did arrive from the portal at one point, a couple of players growing into bigger roles, and some freshmen to mop up minutes when they can. 

I’d think there’s room for a traditional 5, a la Gray still. That was such a priority a year ago that I’d think it remains one.

O’Liney: Porter shot 45% on 2 point shots last year. As a post player, fyi, thatNot good. I hope i’m wrong. But, he might not be a great addition.

Todd H: That could be good news about getting Porter if he has the kind of stats he had at Pepperdine 2 years ago. I haven’t seen his exact numbers from this past season, but I heard there was a drop-off. Oh, and let’s hope the 3rd Porter sibling Mizzou now has is a charm as far as finally being able to stay healthy (you know Mizzou fans always have to worry about things like that)

Hoff: Looking at Jevon Porter’s stats, anyway, he doesn’t seem to be a post presence but has rebounding chops and can knock down some 3s. Seems to me more like someone who can stretch the floor and help out on the boards. I’ll be interested to see if there is another addition to the frontcourt coming, like a traditional center, or whether this changed that.

O’Liney: For those dismissing poor game planning and attributing the Drake loss to “the shots just weren’t falling” are being too friendly to the staff, imho. The fact that a high number of those shots (in the first half at least) were quick 3’s in the shot clock against a team with less size and athleticism was pretty inexcusable. TXTech pounded the ball down low over and over and that’s why they won. (50+ paint points)

Hoff: This goes back to my point we started the chat with. There are a whole lot of reasons why that result was a loss. Everyone’s going to have a little bit different idea of who/what to blame for it.

Tigerboz: Have heard a few rumblings that some dissension among teammates began to develop late in the basketball season. That runs contradictory to the “family” atmosphere that Gates has nurtured. Do you have any insight into that situation or heard anything along those lines?

Hoff: Your rumblings are different than my rumblings. There haven’t been any unexpected transfer portal entries. I spotted no disconnects in the locker room, and even after the Drake loss, players were talking about how close they were with each other. Heck, Tony Perkins started telling me about how excited he was to be at his current teammates’ weddings in the future. The best explanation I’ve heard as to what happened from a mentality standpoint is the one I shared above about a shift after the Alabama game that led to some lost intensity.

Lu: Did you start saying “Y’all” before or after coming to Missouri?

Hoff: We’ll end the chat with this fun one… I used it some in Minnesota, but not as much as I do now. There are some parts of my Minnesotan accent I just can’t shake (some of you will remember the pre-Texas A&M podcast where I had to preface the way I pronounce “Aggies”), so I try to slip y’all in where I can to mask it, haha!

Thanks for coming by, all. Enjoy opening day festivities, and we’ll see you next week!