On Mizzou basketball and "Trusting the Process"

Trust the Process 

As a Royals fan, over the years I came to loathe the above idiom. As did other Royals fans. It became a running joke as General Manager Dayton Moore failed to assemble a playoff team his first seven years on the job and wasn't even close to doing so. All along, however, he echoed the same three words: Trust the Process.

Dayton, though luck certainly played a part and eight years is still an awful long time to put a playoff-caliber product on the field in baseball, did prove prophetic this past season. The Royals made the playoffs for the first time since 1985 and had a magical postseason run that ended one game short of winning the World Series. (Still hurts to type that sentence, two months later).

So what does any of this have to do with the University of Missouri basketball program? Well, trusting the process is just about all any fan of the team can do at this point. The program isn't at its nadir — that occurred in Quin Snyder's final season back in 2004 — but it is certainly in a valley of sorts.

Mike Anderson, who did a wonderful job taking a terrible mess left behind by Snyder and turning it into a respectable program once again, bolted for his roots at Arkansas at the end of the 2010-11 season. There was some obvious turmoil in Anderson's final year, as the team sputtered toward the finish line, despite a talented roster, and Anderson failed to recruit a single player in his final season. Given the fact there were seven juniors on the team, this created a bit of an issue for whomever the next head coach would be.

Athletic Director Mike Alden shocked everyone by hiring Frank Haith, he of a 129-101 record in seven years at the University of Miami (Fla.). It was a baffling hire. And Haith flipped the criticism quickly with an incredible first season in which the team went 30-4 in the regular season and won the Big 12 Tournament. Again, this was an extremely experienced team that had been built by Anderson, however, this particular group never flourished under Anderson the way they did in Haith's system.

Mizzou played its worst game of the season at the worst possible time, in the opening round against Norfolk State, losing in one of the biggest upsets in NCAA Tournament history. All the good feelings toward Haith quickly dissipated. And what's more, the real uphill battle was ahead, as he had to maintain a winning program, due to the scrutiny of the hire and the credibility lost with the fan base after the Norfolk State loss.

Haith could not afford to build with freshmen and take the unavoidable lumps for a season or two. He had neither the time nor the equity. He had to win now. So, he built with transfers and JUCO's, sprinkling in some under-the-radar freshmen.

This is not how you build a program.

Haith was on borrowed time after he failed to make the tournament last season. The fan base didn't like what they had seen and were already sick of all the transfers. There was serious disconnect between the fan base and the team. Haith, despite accumulating a good recruiting class last season, which followed up his first real recruiting class, which was also good, saw the writing on the wall. He needed to have a good year or he was gone. So, he stayed ahead of the whip and bolted to...Tulsa!? Yes, Tulsa.

Rumors of big fish like Greg Marshall, Ben Howland and Mick Cronin filled Twitter and the message boards as for who Mizzou would be targeting for its next coach. No one, absolutely no one, had Kim Anderson on their coaching list as a serious candidate. But, here we are.

The Anderson hire was met with more criticism than the Haith hire. Anderson is a Norm Stewart protege of sorts, so it pleased the old-school alumni crowd, I suppose. I did not like it. But was and am willing to give him his just time to build a program.

Anderson did a great job in assembling a talented assistant coaching staff around him in retaining ace recruiter Tim Fuller and adding former Hunnington Prep (W.V.) head coach Rob Fullford, who brought with him top-50 recruit Montaque Gill-Caesar. The staff also held onto Haith's best two recruits in top-35 forward Jakeenan Gant and top-100 shooting guard Namon Wright. But the roster lost more than 75 percent of its scoring from last season in Los Angeles Lakers guard Jordan Clarkson, Jabari Brown, who is in the D-League, and Earnest Ross, who should be on an NFL roster. Seriously, that guy is a monster.

This season was an inevitability. Mizzou, for all intents and purposes is really bad. The Tigers are 5-4 and have lost to UMKC at home and their five wins are: Valparaiso, Oral Roberts, Chaminade (D-2), SEMO and Elon.

At times, you see flashes of talent, but it's too sporadic. Gill-Caesar (Teki) has looked the best of the freshmen and appears to be the team's best player. Gant has yet to play due to some questions about his eligibility, but he would figure to help this team out significantly. Namon Wright can stroke it, but has too many freshmen moments. D'Angelo Allen has looked good in the small minutes that he's played and Tremaine Isabell appears to be a bit of a project, but he looks like a nice piece.

Of the sophomores, Jonathan Williams III is the clear centerpiece of this team down low. But he's way too inconsistent. At times he looks like a force on the glass and other times completely disinterested. He hit a few outside shots early in the season, which was maybe the worst thing for him, because now he thinks that's part of his repertoire. Spoiler alert: It's not. He needs to add bulk and focus on his craft in the low block, which is where this team needs him the most and where he can blossom. Once he's improved that facet of his game, the mid-range and 3-point shot is something he can certainly look to add in the next two seasons. Wes Clark was one of my favorite recruits when he came in last season. He is painfully enigmatic as a point guard. At times, he shows the ability to lead by distributing and also hitting a pull-up jumper or two when the offense appears stagnant. And then you have his final two minutes against Elon Thursday night, which was the worst extended stretch of basketball I've seen from one player in a long time. Missouri led Elon 70-61, and although the lead had slipped away, the Tigers were ahead by nine with 2:12 remaining.
The following is what the next two minutes looked like from Clark:
— Clark receives inbounds and proceeds to head toward the basket and attempt a twisting, well-defended layup with 32 seconds still left on the shot clock WITH A 9-POINT LEAD AND 2:12 REMAINING
— Clark commits a foul on Elon's Luke Eddy (get familiar with this name, what he does to Clark the next few possession is X-Rated). Eddy makes both free throws. 70-63. 2:02 left.
— Clark panics under the Elon full-court pressure and throws a somewhat ill-advised pass to Keith Shamburger at half court. Shamburger is ruled for an over-and-back violation as he never established himself on Elon side of the court where he received the ball. This is partly on Shamburger, no doubt, but Clark certainly could have seen where he was standing and only three seconds or so had come off the clock when Clark passed it.
— Clark plays off Eddy, who buries a 3-pointer to make it a 70-66 game with 1:41 left.
— Shamburger misses jumper on the other end. No blame to Clark here. Phew.
— Clark gets caught ball watching and loses Eddy, the team's best shooter, on a back screen. Eddy buries a wide open 3-pointer in the corner to make it a 70-69 game with 57 seconds left.
— Williams III is foul and hits both free throws. 72-69 with 47 seconds left.
— Clark gets caught under the basket and commits a touch foul on Kevin Blake, who easily hits the layup and goes to the line on the and-one. 72-71. 36 seconds left. That is Clark's fifth foul, so he's mercifully out of the game.

That, ladies and gentleman, is as bad of a stretch as you will ever see in a "high-level" basketball game. The fact it came in crunch time from the guy who is supposed to be the team's floor general and one of the few "veteran" leaders, is very concerning. It is also to be noted that Blake missed the free throw and after Clark left the game, the Tigers got two straight stops and hit four free throws to seal the game and eventually win 78-73.

Alas, this team has much bigger problems than Clark. There is some talent, albeit young, but real talent on this team and that will only improve when/if Gant is thrown into the mix. The real issue on this squad is its lack of any post play whatsoever. The Tigers have to trot out junior Ryan Rosburg and senior Keanu Post. Both are of absolutely no threat to catch the ball with their back to the basket and score. Anyone who has watched five minutes of Mizzou this season is fully aware of that. It makes it very difficult to score on a consistent basis when you can't rely on points in the paint. But it doesn't end there. Post and Rosburg also have a propensity to foul and foul a lot.

In five of the nine games this season, Post and Rosburg have failed to score more points than fouls committed. FIVE TIMES. That is abhorrent for an entire season, but five times in the first nine games? I don't have a word for that. These are those games:
Oklahoma: 1 foul, 0 points
UMKC: 4 fouls, 3 points
Elon: 3 fouls, 2 points
Purdue: 7 fouls, 4 points
SEMO: 4 fouls, 4 points

For the season the duo has committed 40 fouls and accumulated 52 points. This is what Mizzou has in the way of big men right now. And this is the biggest thing ailing the program currently. If you put Kentucky's backcourt (Version A or B) with this front line, it would still be a very bad team. You simply cannot win at even a marginal rate without some sort of semblance of low-post play.

The only solution in the interim is to give Post's minutes to D'Angelo Allen. That's exactly what happened against Elon, as Post reportedly asked out of the game after playing three minutes in the first half. He got his wish and was in warmups the entire second half. Allen played 21 minutes, scored 12 points and grabbed seven rebounds (four offensive). He's slightly undersized at 6-foot-7, but he's a significant upgrade over Post. When Gant returns, he should be seeing Rosburg's minutes. The kid tries and I would love to see him succeed, as he's a local kid, but he is a liability on the defensive end and provides nothing on the offensive end.
If I were Anderson, going forward I would roll with this starting five:
PG: Shamburger
SG: Wright
SF: Gill-Caesar
PF: Allen
C: JWIII

Once Gant returns, see what he can provide off the bench and work him into the front-court rotation, with an eye on him starting over Allen moving forward. You have Clark, Duece Bello and Isabell off the bench. Beyond that, I'd play Rosburg sparingly to give the front-court trio a breather. He can't play big minutes for this team. As for Post, I don't see what value there is in playing him at all. Anderson seems to have the same line of thinking, as Post has played a combined 15 minutes the past three games. And if he actually did ask out of the game against Elon, that should be the final straw. As cruel as it sounds, he's a hindrance to this basketball team and doesn't fit into the team's long-term plans, as he's gone after this season. His minutes, which don't appear to be valuable to him, should go to the youngsters.

In all likelihood, this team will be 6-7 heading into SEC play. The SEC isn't a great league, but Missouri might be the worst team this season. A reasonable goal for this team should be five wins in the conference. That would put them at 11-20, which is awful, but this season isn't about wins and losses. It's about establishing an identity and building a program. It would be great and would look prettier if they managed to go 8-10 and finished 14-17 overall, but there is absolutely no difference between the two.

I'm interested in how the team progresses throughout the season and what they look like by the end of it. Most Missouri fans will point to this season as an indictment of Anderson and how it was a mistake to hire him. And they may ultimately be right about the latter, but this season won't be the reason why. This team was destined to be bad. How the players develop and what happens beyond this season will determine Anderson's fate. He deserves at least four years to build.

For better or for worse, you'll know if he's the right guy after year four. You just have to sit back and trust the process.

World Series Game 7: At last, we meet

I haven't done a very good job of expressing my thoughts on the Royals this season. I've penned more than a thousand words on them in the past month for my own publication, but only one post here. Considering this team and this franchise inspired a lot of my dreams to become a sportswriter, that sucks.

So, here we are, on the precipice of Game 7 of the freaking World Series in Kansas City at Kauffman Stadium. It's hard to believe. The past month, or month and a half really, has been such a whirlwind. For context, I was more high on this team than a lot of prognosticators and advanced analytical folks. I had the Royals winning 90 games and nabbing the second Wild Card, finishing behind the Tigers by two games. The Tigers, once again, underachieved and won 90 games, while the Royals fell just one win short of where I expected them to be, but due to a down American League, they actually earned the first Wild Card.

So, in that regard, I somewhat expected them to have that clinching moment in late September. But it's kind of like telling people you'll one day get paid to write about sports; when it happens, and you receive that first paycheck, you're still somewhat in awe. Even that doesn't really do justice for what me and many Royals fans felt when Salvador Perez caught the final out against the Chicago White Sox Sept. 26.

I honest to God cried. I sat there in my modest apartment in Carroll, Iowa with tears streaming down my face, seeping into my mouth because it couldn't seem to shut from the permanent smile that I wore. Watching a team chock full of underachieving hitting prospects, unheralded starting pitchers and failed-starters-turned-amazing relievers transform into a good team who was headed for October was a sight to behold.

Many have tried over the years to explain what it's like to be a Royals fan. Fans in their late 30s or older can't quite capture the proper essence in my opinion, because for a time, albeit long ago, they watched championship baseball played by a model franchise. Their perspective is unique in that they saw the once proud franchise devolve into a steaming pile of ineptitude for 20-plus years, especially so after the renewed labor agreements following the 1994 strike-shortened season.

The Royals, like a handful of other small-market teams, weren't just becoming a dying breed, they were left for dead. Baseball changed. And while many other small-market compadres found sage ways to beat the unfair system of baseball's economics, (what up Billy Beane!?) the Royals kept operating in a pre-strike era way.

These are the Royals I knew and, before the past two seasons, have always known.

To me, the Royals aren't the poor SOB who continually finds himself getting kicked in the nuts, or Charlie Brown, who has the football pulled away right before he goes to kick it. No, the Royals are an extra in those scripts for which no one really notices. My Cardinals friends used to laugh when I'd talk about the Royals being contenders someday.

I used to read season previews every year from about the age of nine on, about how maybe this year the Royals could do something special. I talked myself into guys like Ken Harvey, Angel Berroa and Dee Brown becoming real stars. I got excited about aging veterans like Terrence Long being the missing piece. And that Carlos Beltran, Raul Ibanez, Jermaine Dye were just anomalies — that eventually these young stars the Royals produced would stay and sign long-term contracts.

After awhile, through age and wisdom, you come to realize that none of these things were realistic. And that maybe, just maybe, the people running the organization have much more to do with the game than what you are aware of as a kid.

Enter Dayton Moore.

Dayton Moore brought excitement. He brought a history of success. And, most importantly, he brought hope. He preached about his process. He laid out his five-year plan. He then said it was an eight-year plan, or something.

Slowly, but surely, you could begin to see the remnants of a competent baseball team. The scouting and the drafting played an integral role, but no team in the history of baseball has ever won something of significance simply through drafting and developing their own talent. Trades and free agency moves always felt like Moore's weak point from the get go, so it made it extra terrifying when 2013 approached and it became quite clear that he was going to have to pull the trigger on a franchise-altering move to acquire starting pitching.

I said this to my buddy Jack, (if we could somehow find a way to transcribe and post our Royals-related text conversations from the entire season in chronological order, it would jump to the top of the New York Times Best Seller List under NSFW category), that while everyone talks negatively and positively about the James Shields/Wil Myers trade, which was highly-controversial before the 2013 season, the trade that made all this possible is the best trade Moore has ever made and ever will make: The Greinke Trade.

The Royals are not here without Lorenzo Cain and Alcides Escobar. They were the team's second and third most valuable players, as measured by fWAR, with Cain at 4.9 and Escobar at 3.5. Jake Odorizzi, who was a key late addition in the trade, was part of the Myers package that brought Shields and Wade Davis over.

Cain quickly became my favorite Royals player, for no other reason than my belief in his incredible defense in center field. My hope was that his skills at the plate would catchup to his tools in the field at some point. And, the biggest caveat, that he would stay healthy. He did all three of those things this season, and has blossomed into a bonafide star in front of the entire nation due to his excellent postseason play thus far, which earned him an ALCS MVP.

All of this, of course, is a bit longwinded. It's tough to eloquently put into words what I am feeling at this very moment. My sports teams (Mizzou, Royals, Chiefs) do not win championships, or ever really compete for them. And somehow, the team who was the most hopeless of them all, yet grabbed my love the most, is now one game away from winning the whole fucking thing.

It's good to have some bandwagoners, every successful franchise needs them and should strive to become a team who casual fans want to root for, but there is something so pure and and beautiful about this run when you've lived and died with this team for the last 20 years.

It goes beyond the joy of seeing your team winning and celebrating with a few drinks. It's deeper. It's a sort of profound appreciation for yourself and those around you, who endured the four 100-loss seasons and dubious quotes and SportsCenter "Not Top 10" moments that were frequent.

It's your "see!!" moment for all the times people said, "why do you put yourself through this? Why not root for someone else, like the Cardinals?"

This is the payoff. This moment when the team you love finally begins to love you back.

One more win.

On "The Process"

Despite what the title of this post may suggest, this is not the one millionth mocking of Kansas City Royals General Manager Dayton Moore's favorite idiom amid nearly a decade long stretch of futility.

Rather, it stems from a fundamental difference in thinking between two different groups in modern-day baseball. You have the advanced analytics group, which ranges from uber-Sabermetric types to the more casual baseball fan who understands the value of these statistics. I fall in this group and I'm somewhere in between those two endpoints. Then you have the other group. The group that is inherently against this Sabermetric movement and believes statistics like RBI, saves, ERA and batting average were around from the sport's conception, thus they are the holy grail and shall not be minimized!

So when the Royals finish a three-game series in ugly fashion the way they did Sunday against the Twins, there's quite the divide between those two sides. Although, when it comes to Royals fandom, sometimes the first group folks are just as irrational after said losses because of a preseason belief the Royals have a deeply flawed roster not capable of making the postseason.

I don't necessarily begrudge these types of fans, because it's a large part of what makes baseball great. Passion. Living and dying with each game.

I used to be one of these fans, and believe me, I still get enraged while watching the Royals amid a bad stretch. I cursed plenty when they were swept by the lowly Twins to fall to 4-7. But at the end of the series, I also realize that one game, or one series for that matter — despite what baseball traditionalists will tell you — does not have much of a measurable impact on a season.

So Sunday after the game I simply pointed out on Twitter that while the series was frustrating and the Royals played abhorrent baseball, they still have 151 games left. That's a lot of games, obviously. It's a lot of opportunities to suck and also a lot of opportunities to be awesome. Which is why it usually evens itself out by the end of the season.

So the only thing I'm mildly concerned about with the Royals at this point is the offense. Last season the Royals scored 648 runs while allowing an American-League best 601 runs. They won 86 games with that +47 run differential and missed the playoffs by six games.

I predicted the Royals to win 90 games this season based on this year's roster. In order to do that, I think the Royals need to score 700 runs while allowing 625 runs. That would give them a +75 run differential and I've expected a standard deviation, or chance for error due to good or bad luck in one-run games, of +/- 4 games. Meaning, if things break completely right — ala the 2012 Baltimore Orioles, the Royals would have a chance to win 94 games. If they broke terribly wrong, which is sadly more likely, they could have a far better season than they did in 2013, but still finish with the same number of wins (86).

So, all this is to say: the weekend sweep to the Twins is merely a blip on the radar. It's something for local sports radio shows to drum up and boost the ratings by discussing if this team is already a disappointment and what's wrong with players like Mike Moustakas and Billy Butler. Both of which are worrisome at this point — but it all comes back to the main point: It's been 11 games in a 162-games season. That's less than 7 percent of the season. Is getting swept by the Twins good? No, but the Royals play the Twins 16 more times. If they go 12-4 against them in those games, they'll have gone 12-7 against them for the season. As a Royals fan, if you were told that at the beginning of the season, would you take that? Absolutely. So a three-game sweep in early April is somewhat irrelevant from that standpoint. It doesn't matter when and how those seven losses occur as much as it doesn't matter when or how those 12 wins occur. All that matters is their occurrence.

Ultimately, if the Royals win 90 games this season, it will be a great year. That doesn't guarantee they make the playoffs, which would be disappointing, but it would still be a great year.

But if the Royals win 90 games, that means they'll lose 72 games. 72 games. So that means as a fan you'll think it's the end of the world 72 times over the course of the next five months. So you can brace yourself for that 65 more times, or you can understand the end game and keep a few more hairs on your head and years on your life.

I choose the latter.

Winning in March

In February, the Tennessee faithful and several writers who cover college basketball were discussing the job security of Cuonzo Martin.

After a few wins in March, he's due for a raise and extension possibly. This is the college basketball world we live in. Mediocrity over a 30-game sample size will be ignored as long as you can win two, maybe three games in a row in March.

I watched it happen with Mizzou basketball under Quin Snyder and Mike Anderson. Snyder would waffle in mediocrity during the regular season despite assembling fairly impressive talent who, collectively, felt like it should be competing for Big 12 titles. Instead, the sixth seed in the Big 12 tournament was informally reserved for Snyder's teams, who came in firmly on the bubble needing one win, maybe two, to feel safe about making the NCAA Tournament. Once in the tournament, Synder's teams would suddenly transform into a talented and cohesive unit that made a run to the Elite Eight and/or were bounced in epic second round games by Final Four teams — namely, a double-overtime loss to Dwyane Wade's Marquette squad.

So was Snyder a good coach? Absolutely not, but he always seemed to find a way to win two or three games in March.

Mike Anderson was much the same way as his predecessor. And his frantic, "40 Minutes of Hell" brand of basketball usually lent itself to postseason success due to the unfamiliarity of it from equal, or slightly-better talented opponents from different conferences. But save 2008-09, when Mizzou went 28-6 and won the Big 12 Tournament, Anderson's teams were all bubbly. But, with the exception of his last season before bolting for Arkansas, he won at least one game in his three tournament appearances at Mizzou, including an Elite Eight run in that special 2009 season. (Which he cashed in on with raises due to supposed interest from other programs, despite producing declining results in his following seasons.) 

This is the landscape of college basketball. If you can win in March, seemingly all is forgiven. Ultimately, though, that can catch up to you. Snyder was eventually fired and left the program in shambles due to horrid results, on and off the court. Anderson left for Arkansas where he has yet to make an NCAA Tournament — meaning his last tourney win came nearly five years ago in 2010. He was one of the more sought after coaches in the country at that point. Did he suddenly forget how to coach, or was he mediocre to begin with?

The opposite of this March infatuation is true also. Tom Crean is feeling some heat at Indiana after missing postseason play entirely this year. He'd probably be more than all right had his team simply played to seed in the NCAA Tournament last season. He put together a fantastic year in Bloomington and got the Hoosiers the No. 1 seed in the Dance. They were widely considered a title favorite, but were upset in the Sweet 16 by fourth-seeded Syracuse. Does that erase the successful 35-game sample size of of 29-6 that preceded that loss? In college basketball, apparently yes.

I've already exhausted similar points on Frank Haith at Mizzou. That 30-4 2011-12 regular season did happen. It was the most impressive Missouri team I've ever seen. But it might as well have never happened because all that team is remembered for is losing to 15-seed Norfolk State. One slightly off game against an opponent playing out of its mind and suddenly all Haith is remembered for is somehow screwing up the loaded roster he was given. Had that team played Norfolk in December and lost, it would've been a big deal, but it wouldn't have mattered. I suspect had that Missouri team played 50 or 60 games it would have lost 10. It was still an impressive coaching job and a wonderful season, but it ultimately meant nothing. And it's put Haith under intense scrutiny for the average results he's produced the following two seasons — which probably would have been considered rebuilding years had he only won a game or two in the tournament in that first year.

Look, this isn't to say winning in March is meaningless. Final Fours and National Titles are what it's all about in the sport. And those are usually reserved for the elite programs, with a few under-the-radar squads crashing the party every so often. Winning four, five, or six games in a row in March is special. Because it requires great talent, good coaching and cohesiveness. But there is some luck that's involved as well. There are favorable match ups. That said, usually you don't luck your way into a Final Four. But you most certainly can luck your way into a Sweet 16.

Tennessee had more impressive two-game stretches this year than beating UMass and Mercer. (Fully aware they beat Iowa in the "First Four," which frankly was a better win than UMass and Mercer, but there's a reason Iowa was in that game as well.)  Had those same two wins come back-to-back in the non-conference in December, no one would bat an eye or regard Martin as some coach on the rise. But they happen in March, and it supposedly matters more. If Tennessee is bounced in the Sweet 16 by Michigan, the perception of Martin will have already changed. He won in March. He can coach. Now if he wins against Michigan, his stock will soar. And if he, gulp, wins against the winner of Louisville/Kentucky in the Elite 8, well then he just might be a very good coach.

(Wouldn't it be crazy to see him go from "on the hot seat" to, "how much money is it going to take to keep this guy around!?" )

But that's not to say Tennessee wasn't a solid team capable of winning a few games in a row in March all year. The sample size is so small in college hoops, that a team might not really hit its stride until 30 games into the season, and by then it could be too late.

And in a single-game elimination format, anything can happen. Hence, why it's called March Madness.

I mean, Kansas had two top-five picks and at least three first-rounders on its roster this season and the Jayhawks lost 10 games and were sent home by Stanford in the second round. You don't think that team would be significantly more impressive had it played 50 or 60 games together this season? The same goes for Kentucky, who appears to finally be hitting its stride the past couple weeks and is a couple wins from a Final Four.

It's hard to put together 25 or 30-win seasons in college basketball. Really hard. And it's unfortunate how losing in March can tear down those accomplishments. But it's absurd how winning just a little bit in March can make up for the previous 30 games of mediocrity.

What to Make of Mizzou Hoops

There are three games left in the Missouri Tigers' regular season. The Tigers are not a bad team, but they are not a particularly good team. In modern-day college basketball that means they are firmly on the bubble.

Mizzou is 19-9 overall and 7-8 in the Southeastern Conference. The 19-9 isn't necessarily the concerning element, the 7-8, however, is. I think the SEC is a tad underrated as a conference when you look beyond the out-of-date RPI measure and examine advanced analytics employed by Kenpom.com and others. That said, it is at best an average league. So struggling to keep your head above water is no doubt an indictment on you as a basketball team. 

Frank Haith's squad has several weaknesses, but a couple glaring deficiencies that completely hinder the team's capability. The front court is as weak as I can remember in 20 or so years of watching Mizzou basketball. And the team's defensive efficiency is absolutely dreadful. It's nearly impossible to be a good team while being poor in these two areas, so it speaks to the kind of talent that exists in the backcourt for the Tigers to actually have a viable shot at make the NCAA Tournament. That backcourt is a three-headed monster in junior Jabari Brown (20.1 ppg.), junior Jordan Clarkson (18.6 ppg.) and senior Earnest Ross (14.3 ppg.). The trio is responsible for 72 percent of the team's scoring.

So the flip side is, how can this team be on the verge of missing the tourney with THAT backcourt? 

1) The Frontcourt Is Really Bad: Missouri fans got a taste of something that has seldom been seen in a black and gold uniform the past 20 years — a legitimate low-post presence. He came in the form of UCONN transfer Alex Oriahki. He was real and he was spectacular. He can thank Phil Pressey for his current NBA roster spot, in the D-League albeit, but a spot nonetheless. A known commodity on the defensive end and as a rebounder his first three years in college, Oriahki's offensive game took a drastic uptick in a Missouri uniform largely because of how amazingly adept Phil Pressey is at setting his teammates up with beautiful scoring opportunities. But anyway, I'm getting off track. The Oriahki tangent is to say, one year after we saw what a real low-post presence looked like, we now can without a doubt identify what one does not look like. Maybe this lineup following Ricardo Ratliffe (the most efficient scorer in college basketball in 2012) and Oriahki is unfair, but they are so many light years away from those two individuals in production as an ENTIRE UNIT, that it is comical.

• Sophomore Ryan Rosburg catches a lot of flak for his play. And look, he's not great, but it's not exactly his fault he's largely been the best front court player on this team. Rosburg would be a decent glue guy that could come off the bench and give you 15 minutes of 6 points, 5 rebounds, 4 fouls and a few hustle plays that make you think, "hey, this white boy has some spunk!" But that's on a good team. Mizzou is not a "good team." It is an OK team, thus Rosburg has been over-exposed as a starter who plays 23 minutes a game. 
• Freshman Johnathan Williams III, in a normal year, would be the most disappointing big man. Fortunately for him, he's only the third or fourth most disappointing big man on this team. Williams came in as a heralded four-star recruit and he flashes signs of potential that back up his ranking. But for the most part, he's been an ineffective offensive player who shies away from attacking the basket, struggles finishing through contact at the rim too often for a big and has trouble staying on the court due to mostly silly fouls. He's averaging 6.1 points and 6.7 rebounds and 1.4 blocks. For a team who absolutely needed some front-court scoring, he has fallen woefully short of the mark. 
• Senior Tony Criswell is the second-most disappointing player on this team. The UAB transfer displayed some intriguing skills in limited minutes last season. He flashed a mid-range game, rebounding prowess and overall understanding of the game that is quite valuable at this level. All of that, seriously, all of it, disappeared this season. He's averaging less points (4.7), rebounds (3.2) and more damning, minutes (15) than he did a year ago. On this team, it's incredible he isn't starting, but more incredible that he's contributing at a lesser rate when he does get playing time. So, so disappointing and a huge reason this team has waffled since entering conference play. 
• Junior Keanu Post, unfairly or not, is the most disappointing player on this year's team. Post came in as a highly-touted JUCO big man whose services were coveted by programs such as defending national champion Louisville. At nearly 7-feet tall, considering the scouting reports and accolades, he was believed to be an immediate-impact player for this team. Post has been so, so far away from what could be considered an impact player it's depressing. At times, he hasn't even looked like a Division-I player. Post is averaging 6.7 minutes for this team. 6.7 minutes. For this team. He is averaging .8 points and 1.3 rebounds. Again, he's 7-feet tall and has exactly one year of eligibility left. People were underwhelmed by Ratliffe's first season at Mizzou. Post's opening season makes Ratliffe's junior year look like Kevin Love at UCLA, or Minnesota — seriously, that guy is awesome.  

*Freshman Torren Jones, nicknamed "Torrenado" which I fully endorse, has been a bit of a surprising bright spot for this unit. He is extremely athletic, sculpted like a statue and brings all kinds of energy off the bench. He lacks a polished offensive game, but that can certainly come in the next couple years with work. But the measurables and intangibles are certainly there, which is nice. 

Haith deserves criticism for this front court, although the Criswell situation still baffles me. He constructed the roster and it has failed this team in a big way. But even with this abomination of a front court, Mizzou could still be a tourney lock in sole possession of third place in the SEC positioning itself for a decent seed in March Madness if item No. 2 was not so bad. And that is where Haith is most at fault. 

2) The Defense Is Worse: According to Kenpom.com, Missouri's offense is 21st in the country, as measured by AdjO (Adjusted offensive efficiency). Two years ago, in Haith's first season at Mizzou, the team ranked No. 1 in this statistic. You might remember, it went 30-4, won the Big 12 Conference tournament championship and then that was the end of the season. Nothing else happened. Seriously. OK, the Tigers lost to 15-seed Norfolk St. in what was one of the biggest NCAA Tournament upsets of all time, but who really cares about that? Point being, Mizzou's offense has varied from stellar to very good under Haith.
Its defense, however, has been a far cry from that. 

In 2012, Mizzou ranked 148th in AdjD (Adjusted defensive efficiency) and that showed up all season including the finale to Norfolk State. They could literally outscore anyone, but they could also be outscored by almost anyone, including Norfolk State, apparently. 

It's two years later and a Haith Mizzou team has yet to rank outside of the top-25 in AdjO and has yet to rank in the top 75 of AdjD. This year's Tigers rank a dreadful 148th in AdjD. You don't have to be spectacular on the defensive end to be a good team, but you have to be much, much better than 148th. This team would be approximately four games better if it ranked in the top 50 of AdjD. How much different does 23-5, 11-4 look? That's a team fighting for a top-five seed in the tournament, not fighting to be in the tournament itself. This is the most concerning trend of Haith's era at Mizzou.

Make the tourney or not this season, he deserves two more years in my book or anyone who is rational. Five years is standard and pretty much the minimum at programs not named Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, UCLA, Indiana and Duke.

I have no doubt Haith will be able to put together solid offensive teams who, for the most part, value possessions on the offensive end and are efficient scoring the basketball. His ability to get his guys to play defense is what concerns me and should concern any Mizzou basketball fan. Defense in basketball, especially college basketball, embodies the biggest cliches in sports. It truly is about heart and passion. There's a reason teams like Syracuse and Florida are consistently good, even when they don't have the loaded rosters. They play defense. If Haith is to ever reach the success that Mizzou fans will demand and clamor for, his teams will have to play much, much better defense. And honestly, that will likely determine whether or not he has a job in two years. 

As for this year's prospects, they don't look great to put it mildly. Mississippi State and Texas A&M at home then Tennessee on the road. Mizzou will need to, at the bare minimum, go 2-1 and win a game in the SEC tournament to make the field. It will more likely need to finish 3-0 and win a game in the SEC tournament or go 2-1 and make it to the conference tournament championship game. I don't think this team is capable of winning four or five straight, so I'm betting on a 3-2 finish, which will leave Mizzou on the outside looking in. 

If they make the tournament, Haith deserves credit. If they don't make the tournament, Haith deserves criticism, but in no way does it put him on the "hot seat."

It's ironic, really. This year and beyond at Mizzou, Haith's biggest defense will need to be his defense. 

When trash talk becomes real

On Saturday night, Oklahoma State point guard Marcus Smart shoved a Texas Tech fan in the waning moments of the Cowboys' 65-61 loss to the Red Raiders.

Smart was clearly provoked by the fan--who we now know is super fan Jeff Orr--and he clearly said something to him while he was on the ground. Orr claims he called Smart a "piece of crap," and a video released by Texas Tech lends itself to that (even though it seems extremely suspect and Smart appears to mouth that Orr called him a racial slur. Given Smart's reaction, that seems far more likely). Now, Smart's reaction was over the line, especially for someone who has a lot at stake in future NBA money. But aside from all the hoopla and Twitter outrage that came from the incident, an interesting thought entered my mind:

What happened between Smart and Orr was essentially the underbelly of social media acting out in real life. An unassuming fan, who paid good money to sit close to the court, shot his mouth off to a star player as his team was about to win because he had the protection of being a fan in the stands. Much like a vile tweeter has the protection/anonymity of an avatar.

But guess what? The moment Smart got up and reacted to the Orr's words, whatever they were, it got real. And he got scared. He got very scared. He uttered, by my amateur lip-reading skills, "I'm sorry about that." Smart tossed him anyway. And probably rightfully so.

This is social media in the 21st century personified. And honestly, I kind of wish an offended user could have the same opportunity Smart did. You see, we've become a society filled with people who love to speak their minds in hateful fashion. People who think they are tough, most who have never been in a fight. People who think they can shoot off at the mouth with no consequences, because they paid good money to do so or took five minutes to create an account. And the way things are set up, for the most part, those people are correct in those assumptions. So they keep saying vile, awful things knowing there will be no repercussions.

And frankly, it's so great to see that come to life and to see "Internet tough guy" cower while he's pushed like the loudmouth, all-hat-and-no-cattle buffoon that he is. People are allowed to say ignorant, hateful things to complete strangers in today's society due to the infinite outlets provided for them to do so. There's no accountability. Just hate.

If those social media spats were to get real just like the Smart/Orr incident did, less of it would happen.

And now we're left with this. Smart, who has been suspended three games, now has his character called into question. And I'm not sure whether or not it should be. But I know that's what will be talked about more than what should be talked about.

Smart isn't the first star athlete to have a douchebag fan taunt him or insult him to his face. But he's one of the few to physically respond to it. And that's why he'll be heavily scrutinized. But it doesn't change the dynamic between players and opposing fans or even home fans for that matter. And it certainly doesn't change the dynamic between modern-day Internet tough guys and us regular folk.

The Case for Frank Haith

I don't know if Frank Haith is a good coach.
I don't know if Frank Haith is a bad coach.
I do know that sports fans are irrational and impulsive.

And Haith's resume at Missouri warrants nothing remotely close to justify him losing his job. Yet, I've seen that topic on message boards and received multiple texts from friends 15 games into his third season, a season in which the team is 13-2, by the way.

To be clear, I am in no way the president of the Frank Haith Fan Club. I was extremely critical of the hire back in 2011. So much so that I recall phoning my brother the next morning, and even after allowing myself a night to calm down, I was still irately screaming as if Breaking Bad had been cancelled midway through Season 5.

Haith is 66-18 at Missouri with two NCAA Tournament appearances and the team has a shot at a third straight appearance this season. If the Tigers do make it to the dance it will be the sixth straight year they have done so. That would be the longest consecutive streak of tourney births IN PROGRAM HISTORY. Mizzou has also never made a Final Four appearance.

So to recap, there is an actual continuity among some in the fan base to fire a head coach who has almost an .800 winning percentage at a program who historically struggles to consistently make the NCAA Tournament and has never put a team past the Elite Eight.

Missouri is a very good job. It has very good facilities, a fertile recruiting ground in state and good, not great, fan support. But it is certainly in no position for its fans to be calling for the the AD to axe a coach whose record through 84 games is better than any of his predecessors. And I'm honestly not sure where it comes from.

Although, I have an idea.
(And spare me the "x's and o's argument." He is a superior coach in that regard to his predecessor Mike Anderson, who I'm still not convinced teaches' set plays on offense and his defensive strategy is to press and trap and then sit back and play lazy-reach in defense in hopes of creating a turnover or quick shot and scoring in transition..yet I never heard anyone calling for his job. In fact, he kept leveraging raises after his one magic season in 2008-09 without even coming close to duplicating the same on-court product. But there was "interest" from other programs. Damn those stupid other programs. And damn MA's agent is gooood. Also, that's actually my main gripe with Haith, is his in-game coaching, so 1) I'll get to that later and 2) Shut up) 

There is this incredibly unfair and contradictory case that Haith's detractors point to in order to belittle his record. And it happened in two short years. Which is quite remarkable. You see, he won with "Mike Anderson's guys" in year one. That's how they went 14-4 in the Big 12 and 30-4 overall —  the best regular season in school history. Nevermind Anderson went 23-11 and 8-8 in conference the year before despite having virtually the exact same team as well as a healthy Laurence Bowers, who sat out in Haith's first year with a knee injury. But, poor Haith, it seemed that on March 16 it suddenly was in fact his team, and he failed to get them past little old 15-seed Norfolk St. in the first round of the tournament.

Thus the storyline became: "Anderson gifted him an amazingly talented, experienced squad and he couldn't even get them out of the first round of the NCAA Tournament! Against a No. 15 seed, no less."

The real story was: "Frank Haith took over a team that was a hot mess a year earlier. A team who couldn't win on the road if there closest family member's life was at stake and looked as if it had given up on their coach and season before getting blasted in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. And he turned them into one of the best teams in the country and the best regular-season team in Mizzou history. But the team's biggest flaw, its defensive efficiency, was exposed by an underrated Norfolk St. team that shot the ever-living shit out of the ball and played the best game of their lives to knock the Tigers off by two points. Heartbreak." 

That's where Haith's pigeon hole began. And irrational fans are by their very nature, well, irrational. And so no one wants to take notice of the fact Haith, while taking over a very talented and experienced team,  he took over a VERY EXPERIENCED team. Seven seniors. And Anderson wasn't so kind as to even have one commitment for the 2011 class when he packed his bags for Arkansas. And the 2011 class in the state of Missouri was, coincidentally, quite possibly the greatest in the state's history. BJ Young, and All-SEC player at Arkansas, who left for the NBA after his sophomore season, was the fourth-best player in the state that year. Bradley Beal (Florida), Otto Porter (Georgetown) and Ben McLemore (Kansas) all went elsewhere and all became NBA Lottery picks within two years.

So Haith, who was hired in May, about a month from signing day, cobbled together a last-minute class of two transfers: Earnest Ross (Auburn) and Keion Bell (Pepperdine). Leftovers from the year before included: Phil Pressey, Laurence Bowers and Michael Dixon Jr. That's it.

Haith was tasked with filling out the rest of the roster with his first actual recruiting class in 2012 and a crap-load of transfers. And he got some very, very good transfers. Former 5-star recruits Alex Oriakhi (UCONN) and Jabari Brown (Oregon), UAB transfer Tony Criswell and Tulsa transfer Jordan Clarkson. The freshman class was four 3-star recruits: Domonique Bull, Stefan Jankovic, Negus Webster-Chan and St. Louis product Ryan Rosburg. Sadly, Rosburg is all who remains.

Nothing flashy, but he successfully constructed a roster that had exactly three players returning from the year before into a somewhat deep and talented team for his second season. Clarkson wasn't eligible until this season and Brown wasn't eligible until the second semester of last season. It was billed as an SEC Title contender and legitimate Final Four threat due to all the talent, despite that fact it was a lot of spare parts. And then, one of the three remaining returning players, one of "Anderson's guys," Dixon was involved in an alleged sexual assault and was unofficially dismissed from the team and transferred to Memphis. That would prove to be a killer on the 2012 season. It forced uber-talented point guard Phil Pressey to essentially run an offense full of guys he had just met and started playing with, other than Bowers and AAU friend Oriakhi. And in a game like basketball, that is very much a rhythm and chemistry-oriented game, the results that followed should have been predictable.

The team showed flashes of brilliance all season, but never fully put it together. They went 23-10 in the regular season and 11-7 in the SEC, finishing sixth in a conference that wasn't very good. And they were bounced by a very good, senior-laden Colorado State team in a game that looked like one team had been playing together for the last four years and the other the last four months.

First-round exit. Again. Oh, and Haith's old team Miami, they went 27-6 and won the ACC regular-season and tournament title, and advanced to the Sweet 16 under new coach Jim Larranaga.

Thus, predictably, the new storyline surfaced: "Further proof Frank Haith can't coach. Look what Larranaga did in just his second year at Miami! He took that program from middle of the road to a national power, and got them farther than Haith ever did in his tenure there! And that was his excuse! That you couldn't win at Miami, because the school wasn't dedicated to basketball success and their facilities were crap and blah, blah, blah!" 

Jim Larranaga is a very good coach. Hell, he took George freaking Mason to a Final Four. But didn't he kind of just win with Frank Haith's guys kind of like Haith just won with Anderson's guys?

Shane Larkin is a filthy sophomore point guard, who led a very talented and experienced Miami squad to a great season. Sound familiar? Kind of like a very talented sophomore Phil Pressey led a polished and experienced Mizzou team to a magical season? So to get it straight, Frank Haith won more with Mike Anderson's guys, so it's not indicative of him being a good coach. And Laranaga won more with Haith's guys, so it's an indictment on him as a coach.

It's like I'm taking crazy pills. You can't use both arguments. Pick one. If you choose both you are contradicting yourself and you are an irrational moron. Repeat, you are an irrational moron.

So then came last Wednesday. When Mizzou lost at home to a woeful 6-6 Georgia team. Easily the worst loss in Haith's tenure. And it dropped the Tigers to 12-2. They are 13-2 and 1-1 in the SEC with his first real recruiting class in the fold and a completely new roster from his first year on the job. That's madness. There's not a single player leftover from the Anderson era. Mizzou's 2013 recruiting class was a top-25 class by most outlets and top-20 according to ESPN with 4-star power forward Jonathan Williams III and 4-star point guard Wes Clark headlining the class. Both have contributed this season and look promising.

Haith has added Baylor transfer Deuce Bello and Notre Dame transfer Cameron Biescheid — both former top-100 recruits signed for next season — as well as two highly touted 4-star recruits, Jakeenan Grant and Namon Wright, in the 2014 class, which should be higher rated than the 2013 class when all is said and done. Meanwhile, the coaching god among men, Larranaga has Miami sitting at 9-7 with losses to St. Francis (NY), UCF, Nebraska and George Washington. Most of Haith's players are gone. So, yeah make of that what you will. And Anderson is in year three at Arkansas and has yet to make the NCAA Tournament and will need a great run in conference in order to avoid missing the dance again this season.

Look, I'm not trying to say Frank Haith is a brilliant coach. I've never been a believer in his ability to coach defense, although it's been better this season. And I question some of his late-game coaching decisions as well as the 10-minute offensive lulls in games he allows where his team to pass the ball a total of five times in 15 possessions and coincidentally ends up with no buckets during that stretch. The offensive end has been too dribble heavy and at often times discombobulated with no real appearance of a team concept that teams like Iowa State and Wisconsin portray so well.

But Haith is in year three. And if he's able to get this year's team to the tourney, it would be an admirable coaching job in my honest opinion. If you plan on giving a college basketball coach less than four years to put a championship-level product on the court at a school not named Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina or Duke, then plan on firing a lot of coaches and experiencing very little success. He needs time. Time to prove he knows what he's doing or time to prove he doesn't. But that takes patience. And that's something Haith has unquestionably earned 2 1/2 years in. (I mean seriously, Mizzou fans, we've waited our whole lives to make a Final Four, and we're worried about waiting another year or two? This is a program that hired Quin Snyder over Bill Self. Things could and have been a lot worse.) 

Year four will shed much more accurate light on Haith as a coach, I believe. He'll have "his team." And that should include a freshman and sophomore class that is full of talent, to go along with several seniors and juniors who have played together for at least one year. Comraaderie and chemistry won't be an excuse and the talent level absolutely won't be one.

So what will the result be? That's up to Haith and the players. But until the dust settles on next season, Mizzou fans would be well served well to dim the torches.

Edit: Mizzou lost at Vandberbilt 78-75 hours after writing this post. They are now 13-3 and 1-2 in a crappy SEC. That ain't good, but all above sentiments stand.