A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
42.1% · rank 23 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Missouri
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.49
+14.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–132025–26 recorded finals
117.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Missouri.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1333 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.3Mean opponent adj. net 9.6 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 47 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 212 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 274 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 206 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 57 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 266 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
42.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 23 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 214 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.1 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.7 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.4% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.7% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.0% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.8% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.4% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.1% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.0% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.2% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.5% | 33 | Opponent assists / FGM. |
Window changes describe the historical sample; they do not refit the preseason model. Full-season ranks require 10 games. Percentiles compare qualifying programs in the model’s rated field. Source coverage can differ by metric.
NCAA source context / 2025–26
What did the possessions look like?
2,285 source possession rows across 33 recorded team-games. These are descriptive NCAA source aggregates: they do not assign individual credit or enter the forecast.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Effective FG%
55.0% · rank 47 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.7% · rank 266 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.8% · rank 274 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
These are stat-led film prompts, not verified explanations of a scheme. Lower-ranked factors can still be above average. A five-point-or-closer final occurred 11 times in the selected window; Missouri won 8. That small-sample record is not a clutch-skill estimate.
03 / How the season moved
Read beyond the average.
● Offense● Opponent offenseRaw points / 100 possessions · game order
Mar 21, 2026 · neutral vs Miami · L 66–80 · offense 98.3 / defense 119.1
Higher offense and lower opponent offense are better. Opponent strength and venue are not adjusted here. Missing paired boxes create gaps.
Open the game-by-game scouting log · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MiamiMar 21, 2026 · neutral | L 66–80 | 57 | 98.3 | 119.1 | 67.2 | 43.9 | 13.4 | 18.9 |
| KentuckyMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 72–78 | 20 | 104.5 | 113.2 | 68.9 | 51.8 | 21.8 | 35.5 |
| ArkansasMar 7, 2026 · home | L 84–88 | 23 | 109.9 | 115.1 | 67.9 | 52.4 | 17.0 | 28.6 |
| OklahomaMar 4, 2026 · road | L 64–80 | 38 | 100.7 | 125.9 | 63.6 | 54.9 | 25.2 | 32.3 |
| Mississippi StFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 88–64 | 64 | 127.9 | 93.0 | 68.8 | 57.6 | 17.4 | 43.8 |
| TennesseeFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 73–69 | 11 | 111.4 | 105.3 | 65.6 | 50.9 | 12.2 | 27.3 |
| ArkansasFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 86–94 | 23 | 125.7 | 137.4 | 68.4 | 61.6 | 14.6 | 25.9 |
| VanderbiltFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 81–80 | 29 | 115.9 | 114.5 | 69.9 | 53.8 | 20.0 | 32.3 |
| TexasFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 68–85 | 34 | 105.4 | 131.8 | 64.5 | 46.7 | 14.0 | 26.7 |
| Texas A&MFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 86–85 | 31 | 131.0 | 129.5 | 65.6 | 59.2 | 13.7 | 47.1 |
| South CarolinaFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 78–59 | 99 | 119.0 | 90.0 | 65.5 | 52.8 | 21.4 | 48.5 |
| Mississippi StJan 31, 2026 · home | W 84–79 | 64 | 114.9 | 108.1 | 73.1 | 50.9 | 13.7 | 32.4 |
| AlabamaJan 28, 2026 · road | L 64–90 | 12 | 86.3 | 121.4 | 74.1 | 42.4 | 17.5 | 32.6 |
| OklahomaJan 24, 2026 · home | W 88–87 | 38 | 116.6 | 115.3 | 67.1 | 49.2 | 15.9 | 41.5 |
| GeorgiaJan 21, 2026 · home | L 72–74 | 37 | 106.1 | 109.1 | 67.8 | 45.5 | 17.7 | 37.5 |
| LSUJan 17, 2026 · road | L 70–78 | 74 | 112.7 | 125.6 | 62.1 | 50.0 | 19.3 | 32.1 |
| AuburnJan 15, 2026 · home | W 84–74 | 15 | 122.6 | 108.0 | 68.5 | 65.6 | 19.0 | 26.9 |
| Ole MissJan 10, 2026 · road | L 69–76 | 54 | 103.4 | 113.9 | 66.7 | 55.9 | 19.5 | 27.3 |
| KentuckyJan 8, 2026 · road | W 73–68 | 20 | 107.4 | 100.0 | 68.0 | 57.7 | 17.7 | 14.8 |
| FloridaJan 4, 2026 · home | W 76–74 | 4 | 112.0 | 109.0 | 67.9 | 52.7 | 14.7 | 31.4 |
| IllinoisDec 23, 2025 · neutral | L 48–91 | 7 | 77.0 | 146.0 | 62.3 | 33.9 | 16.0 | 30.0 |
| BethuneDec 14, 2025 · home | W 82–60 | 301 | 122.2 | 89.4 | 67.1 | 63.6 | 22.4 | 42.3 |
| Alabama StDec 12, 2025 · home | W 85–77 | 322 | 136.8 | 123.9 | 62.2 | 72.5 | 17.7 | 33.3 |
| KansasDec 7, 2025 · neutral | L 60–80 | 17 | 91.4 | 121.8 | 65.7 | 40.2 | 15.2 | 35.6 |
| Notre DameDec 3, 2025 · road | L 71–76 | 114 | 103.3 | 110.6 | 68.7 | 50.0 | 17.5 | 25.7 |
| Cleveland StNov 28, 2025 · home | W 86–59 | 267 | 121.6 | 83.5 | 70.7 | 56.0 | 22.6 | 51.4 |
| SC StateNov 26, 2025 · home | W 98–66 | 343 | 139.9 | 94.2 | 70.0 | 57.7 | 12.9 | 54.3 |
| South DakotaNov 21, 2025 · home | W 102–68 | 289 | 137.6 | 91.8 | 74.1 | 69.6 | 22.9 | 50.0 |
| Prairie ViewNov 18, 2025 · home | W 91–73 | 336 | 119.4 | 95.8 | 76.2 | 59.7 | 18.4 | 35.3 |
| MinnesotaNov 13, 2025 · home | W 83–60 | 91 | 134.3 | 97.1 | 61.8 | 70.4 | 14.6 | 13.0 |
| VMINov 9, 2025 · home | W 106–68 | 363 | 140.3 | 90.0 | 75.6 | 62.3 | 14.6 | 50.0 |
| SE MissouriNov 8, 2025 · home | W 89–84 | 243 | 115.1 | 108.6 | 77.4 | 64.8 | 24.6 | 31.0 |
| HowardNov 4, 2025 · road | W 88–67 | 223 | 122.6 | 93.3 | 71.8 | 63.9 | 22.3 | 47.1 |
04 / The people behind the possessions
Personnel and workload.
2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →
| Player | GP | MIN/G | PTS/G | REB/G | AST/G | TS% | Est. usage | Usage games | AST/TO | 3PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Mitchell Jr.G | 33 | 33.8 | 18.3 | 5.2 | 3.6 | 60.6 | 25.5% | 33 | 1.7233 games | 4933 games |
| Anthony Robinson IIG | 33 | 27.0 | 8.9 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 52.4 | 18.8% | 33 | 1.8133 games | 10533 games |
| Jayden StoneG | 26 | 30.0 | 13.5 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 63.3 | 19.4% | 26 | 1.8826 games | 13026 games |
| T.O. BarrettG | 33 | 22.8 | 8.6 | 2.7 | 3.0 | 53.4 | 22.4% | 33 | 1.4333 games | 4433 games |
| Jacob CrewsG | 33 | 20.7 | 8.4 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 64.8 | 17.0% | 33 | 0.4433 games | 12933 games |
| Shawn Phillips Jr.C | 31 | 20.5 | 7.6 | 5.1 | 0.6 | 65.8 | 19.4% | 31 | 0.3131 games | 031 games |
| Trent PierceG | 20 | 28.4 | 10.4 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 61.0 | 16.7% | 20 | 1.5320 games | 9920 games |
| Sebastian MackG | 18 | 16.4 | 7.0 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 47.5 | 24.7% | 18 | 0.5818 games | 3318 games |
| Luke NorthweatherF | 20 | 12.3 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 61.0 | 10.7% | 20 | 1.8320 games | 3120 games |
| Jevon PorterF | 12 | 17.3 | 6.2 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 56.9 | 16.4% | 12 | 2.3812 games | 2812 games |
Usage is a minutes-based estimate over the stated sample, not a direct measure of on-court possessions. Low-minute estimates are noisy. AST/TO is unavailable when recorded turnovers are zero; missing fields are never filled with zero.
05 / Recruiting evidence
What changed around Missouri?
This panel keeps dated school publications, source-listed roster observations and prior college production in separate evidence lanes. A source record does not establish eligibility, availability or a future role.
13Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
83%Prior minutes represented
Role workload watch
Which source-listed role is represented?
Prior minutes are grouped by the source-reported position on the current listing. “Unrepresented” means prior minutes not attached to a same-program listing in this release; it does not establish a departure, transfer, eligibility or expected role.
| Role | Listed | Prior minutes | Returning minutes | Incoming prior minutes | Returning share | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard | 9 | 4,260 | 4,260 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 455 | 455 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 819 | 819 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,534 minutes).
No dated school announcement is in the selected review file for this program. The roster row below is observation-only; absence of a reviewed announcement does not mean the program made no move.
No announced additions are in the reviewed file for this program.
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
13 source-listed players. Prior rates below are attached by exact source ID where available; missing values remain missing.
| Player | Observation | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Prior TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Robinson II →G | Same programMissouri Tigers | 27.0 | 8.9 | 52.4% |
| Jayden Stone →G | Same programMissouri Tigers | 30.0 | 13.5 | 63.3% |
| T.O. Barrett →G | Same programMissouri Tigers | 22.8 | 8.6 | 53.4% |
| Jacob Crews →G | Same programMissouri Tigers | 20.7 | 8.4 | 64.8% |
| Shawn Phillips Jr. →C | Same programMissouri Tigers | 20.5 | 7.6 | 65.8% |
| Trent Pierce →G | Same programMissouri Tigers | 28.4 | 10.4 | 61.0% |
| Sebastian Mack →G | Same programMissouri Tigers | 16.4 | 7.0 | 47.5% |
| Luke Northweather →F | Same programMissouri Tigers | 12.3 | 3.0 | 61.0% |
| Jevon Porter →F | Same programMissouri Tigers | 17.3 | 6.2 | 56.9% |
| Trent Burns →C | Same programMissouri Tigers | 8.7 | 2.1 | 46.1% |
| Annor Boateng →G | Same programMissouri Tigers | 11.5 | 2.7 | 39.7% |
| Nicholas Randall →G | Same programMissouri Tigers | 5.5 | 0.7 | 33.0% |
Showing the 12 highest prior-minute records. Open the full roster board for every source-listed player.
Recruiting review edition Sep 8, 2026 · coverage is partial (14 programs reviewed). See the full methodology and coverage map before drawing a roster conclusion.
Look ahead / 2026–27
The next assignments.
Checking the live schedule edition…
Missouri vs Saint Louis
79.9Missouri
78.6Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate50.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.3
Projected total158.4
80% home-margin range-17.3 to 14.6
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.6 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · Missouri defense 50.5%Missouri attack 55.2% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 3.2 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · Missouri defense 18.9%Missouri attack 16.9% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 7.4 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · Missouri defense 31.0%Missouri attack 32.2% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.4 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · Missouri defense 35.8%Missouri attack 40.3% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Missouri vs Marquette
75.6Missouri
75.9Marquette
Marquette win estimate54.9%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.3
Projected total151.5
80% home-margin range-15.6 to 16.2
Estimated possessions69.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.0 pts
Marquette attack 53.5% · Missouri defense 50.5%Missouri attack 55.2% · Marquette defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 0.0 pts
Marquette attack 15.2% · Missouri defense 18.9%Missouri attack 16.9% · Marquette defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 2.9 pts
Marquette attack 29.7% · Missouri defense 31.0%Missouri attack 32.2% · Marquette defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.3 pts
Marquette attack 31.6% · Missouri defense 35.8%Missouri attack 40.3% · Marquette defense 31.2%
United Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Pitt vs Missouri
70.6Pitt
76.5Missouri
Missouri win estimate69.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.9
Projected total147.1
80% home-margin range-10.0 to 21.9
Estimated possessions65.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.6 pts
Missouri attack 55.2% · Pitt defense 50.6%Pitt attack 52.6% · Missouri defense 50.5%
Ball securityAway 2.4 pts
Missouri attack 16.9% · Pitt defense 17.3%Pitt attack 16.0% · Missouri defense 18.9%
Second chancesHome 4.2 pts
Missouri attack 32.2% · Pitt defense 27.2%Pitt attack 31.9% · Missouri defense 31.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.0 pts
Missouri attack 40.3% · Pitt defense 32.5%Pitt attack 33.6% · Missouri defense 35.8%
Mizzou Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Read the evidence correctly.
The top-line adjusted ratings use the full published preseason model. Split statistics below them are unadjusted observations from 2025–26. Opponent ranks are the current model’s ranks, not what was known before each historical game. The “top 50” split is descriptive and does not enter model evaluation.
Rates pool numerators and denominators from games with all fields required for that metric. Missing values remain unavailable; every metric shows its game count. Ranks require at least 10 games and compare programs in the model’s rated field. Ties share rank; percentiles use their average position. High percentiles mean favorable values only for metrics with a defined direction.
Player workloads refer to recorded 2025–26 appearances. Estimated usage divides FGA + 0.475 × FTA + turnovers by minutes-prorated team opportunities in those same games. It assumes team opportunity rates were constant while a player was on court; it is not a lineup or play-by-play measurement. Overtime is included in available minutes. Minutes and usage samples can differ.
Source statistics: SportsDataverse bulk releases, CC BY 4.0. Calculations and model: Silvermine. Definitions draw on publicly documented Four Factors and basketball rate statistics; these are not another publisher’s proprietary ratings. Model notebook →