At least on paper, Monday night’s college basketball national title game, in which Virginia took down Texas Tech 85-77, wasn’t exactly the sexiest matchup. Neither the Red Raiders nor Cavaliers would be considered a basketball blue-blood, with Virginia last making the Final Four in 1980 prior to this season, and Texas Tech never having done so. Plus, the plodding, defensive-oriented styles of both teams likely didn’t scintillate viewers.
But the fact that those two teams met with a national title on the line should have excited some fans outside of Charlottesville and Lubbock — and not just the crowd of basketball coaches who like to constantly remind younger generations that “defense wins championships.” A Texas Tech-Virginia matchup provides hope for Missouri fans that Cuonzo Martin could someday lead the program to the sport’s biggest stage.
Like Missouri, neither Virginia nor Texas Tech possesses the facilities or budget of perennial contenders like Kentucky or Duke. Neither is a fixture at the top of the annual recruiting rankings, either (although it is worth pointing out that Virginia’s 2016 recruiting class, which produced the team’s three leading scorers and a key reserve this year, ranked No. 3 in the country). But perhaps most importantly, both teams match up stylistically with Martin’s blueprint at Missouri. That is to say, both value defense above all else. Texas Tech finished the season ranked No. 1 nationally in defensive efficiency, with Virginia close behind at No. 5.
Since arriving at Missouri just over than two years ago, Martin has constantly preached the value of defense. According to the Ken Pomeroy ratings, Missouri ranked No. 43 nationally in defensive efficiency during the 2017-2018 season. This year, even though the team struggled overall, it still ranked No. 50 in defensive efficiency. Admittedly, the Tigers still have a long way to go to match the elite defenses of Texas Tech and Virginia — and some ground to make up on the offensive end as well — but as Missouri’s players gain more experience under Martin (and if they stay healthy), it would make sense for the team to improve defensively.
Here are a three similarities between Missouri and the two participants in Monday’s title game, as well as a three areas the Tigers need to improve to make themselves more like Texas Tech and Virginia.
Similarity: Lineup construction. During the past year, much has been made of Missouri’s — and seemingly everyone else’s — push to play “positionless basketball.” Like Martin, Texas Tech coach Chris Beard has been quoted as describing his team’s style as “positionless.” While it is easy to argue that both the Red Raiders and Tigers had pretty clearly defined positions for much of this season, there are some similarities in the two teams’ lineups. For both teams, a 6-foot-10 center serves as the anchor of the defense. Despite his struggles Monday, Tariq Owens served as a powerful deterrent at the rim for Texas Tech. Jeremiah Tilmon played that role for Missouri (at least in theory). Both teams surrounded their big man with four athletic, versatile players ranging from 6-foot-2 to 6-foot-8. While Virginia had a bit more size than Missouri, it, too, generally surrounded a center with three guards and 6-foot-7 DeAndre Hunter. Missouri should have plenty of options who can play the one through three spots next season. Like this year, the big question mark will be at power forward. Virginia and Texas Tech both had projected lottery picks in the NBA Draft at those spots in Hunter and Jarrett Culver, while Missouri will likely rely heavily on true freshman Tray Jackson next season. Jackson has a similar skillset to Hunter and Culver, but expecting him to play to Martin’s defensive standards right away might be too much to ask.
Difference: Lack of shot-blocking. While Missouri’s lineup may be constructed similarly to Texas Tech and Virginia, the Tigers struggled mightily to protect the rim this season, an area in which both of the two finalists excelled. Texas Tech ranked No. 5 nationally in block percentage, swatting 15.6 percent of opponent shots. Virginia ranked No. 26, blocking 13.1 percent. Missouri, meanwhile, blocked just 5.2 percent of opponent shots, which ranked No. 336 out of 353 Division One teams. A major reason for the Tigers’ shot-blocking struggles was that frequent foul trouble made Tilmon hesitant to look for shot-blocking opportunities. Tilmon, Missouri’s leading shot blocker, averaged 0.8 rejections per game. Meanwhile, Owens averaged 2.46, and Virginia center Mamadi Diakite averaged 1.85. Moral of the story: It’s difficult to field an elite defense without a shot-blocking presence that can deter opponents from attacking the rim.
Similarity: Three-point defense. College basketball is in the midst of a three-point shooting revolution. With each new season, teams are attempting more three-pointers than ever before. So it’s no surprise that the best defensive teams defend the three-point line well. Texas Tech ranked No. 13 nationally in three-point defense this season, forcing opponents to shoot just 29.8 percent from three-point range. Virginia was even better, holding opponents to 28.9 percent from behind the three-point line, which ranked No. 3 in the country. Missouri, too, defended well on the perimeter this season, though not as well as the Cavaliers or Red Raiders. Missouri held opponents to 31.9 percent shooting from three-point range, which ranked No. 45 nationally.
Difference: Two-point defense. While Missouri’s guards defended well on the perimeter, the Tigers’ defense lapsed in effectiveness when opponents drove toward the basket. Missouri allowed opponents to shoot 50.5 percent from two-point range and gave up an average of 32.2 points per game inside the arc. Those numbers ranked No. 196 and No. 65, respectively — not bad, but hardly elite. Texas Tech, meanwhile, held opponents to 41.9 percent shooting inside the three-point arc — third-best nationally — and allowed 26.6 points per game from two-pointers. Virginia opponents made two-pointers at a 45.7 percent clip, and the Cavaliers allowed gave up 27.4 points per game from two’s. There could be several explanations for Missouri’s deficiency in two-point defense; Tilmon’s foul troubles, inconsistency at power forward and the reliance on so many young players who are still maturing physically all come to mind. Whatever the reason, Missouri will need to improve its two-point defense moving forward.
Similarity: Pace. One of the hallmarks of Tony Bennett’s teams at Virginia has been an ability to make opponents play at the Cavaliers’ plodding tempo. Missouri didn’t play quite as slowly as Virginia this season — no team in the country did — but the Tigers did a decent job of keeping opponents from scoring quickly. Missouri ranked No 197 in defensive possession length this season (with No. 1 being the team with the quickest defensive possessions — probably not a good thing). Missouri’s opponents possessed the ball for an average of 17.5 seconds per possession. That’s not as slow as Virginia forced teams to play — the Cavaliers’ opponents used 18.8 seconds off the shot clock on average — but it’s identical to Texas Tech. While these numbers show Missouri isn’t a pressing team or one that often gambles for steals, they also prove that the Tigers did a solid job of forcing opponents to work to find open looks in the halfcourt, which was especially important given the team’s limited scoring ability this season.
Difference: Turnovers and fouls. On several occasions during Martin’s two years at Missouri, the Tiger offense has sabotaged its defense by turning the ball over and giving opponents easy scoring opportunities in transition. As illustrated by Virginia, a team built on slowing the game down can’t afford to give up 10 to 20 points a game off turnovers. The Cavaliers ranked No. 11 nationally in turnover percentage this season, giving the ball away on just 14.3 percent of possessions. Texas Tech wasn’t quite as good, turning the ball over on 17.6 percent of the time, but it was far better than Missouri, which gave the ball away on 20.6 percent of its trips. That ranked No. 316 nationally. Plus, Missouri surrendered far too many points at the free-throw line. The Tigers committed a whopping 19.5 fouls per game, which ranked No. 301 nationally. Those fouls led to opponents scoring more than one-fifth of their points from the free-throw line. Virginia, on the other had, has mastered playing defense without fouling. The national champions committed just 14.3 fouls per game this season — sixth-fewest in the country — which resulted in 16.4 percent of its opponent’s points to come from the free throw line. To put it in more concrete terms, Virginia’s opponents averaged 13.8 free throw attempts per game, while Missouri’s averaged 20.4. That directly accounts for five to seven points a game that a slow-paced, defensive-oriented team like Missouri cannot afford to surrender.
