There’s nowhere to go but up for Missouri basketball after an 0-18 SEC slate last year.
The tradition continues! CBB Review is again ranking the top 100 teams heading into the new college basketball season. Each day, we will reveal the next team until we reach the team slotted at number one. Up next: Missouri basketball.
After making the tournament and falling just short of the Sweet Sixteen with a 25-10 record in coach Dennis Gates’s first year at the helm in Columbia, expectations were high with the Tigers heading into year two.
As it turns out, the victory over Tennessee in the quarterfinals of the 2023 SEC Tournament is still the most recent conference victory for Missouri. It’s now September of 2024, and the Tigers won’t get another chance for a victory in-conference until 2025.
But, as previously mentioned, it can truly only get better for this team after the 8-24 tumble last season. At a certain point, when confronted with challenges, there’s nothing for a team to do but look forward towards the future, and Dennis Gates has a wide open chance to do that this year.
For better or worse, the 2024-25 version of the Missouri Tigers basketball team will look very different from the year before. Unfortunately, Sean East II, Nick Honor, and Noah Carter are all out of eligibility, three of the four players who made the most positive impact for the Tigers last year. Connor Vanover, John Tonje, Jesús Carralero Martin, Jordan Butler, Curt Lewis, Kaleb Brown, and Mabor Majak are all gone from last year’s team as well, which left Gates to do some heavy portal lifting.
That’s exactly what the third-year coach did, adding Marques Warrick (19.9 PPG) from Northern Kentucky, Jacob Crews (19.1 PPG) from UT-Martin, Tony Perkins (14.0 PPG) from Iowa, Mark Mitchell (11.6 PPG) from Duke, and Josh Gray (3.2 PPG) from South Carolina. The strength of the portal additions was enough for 247Sports to dignify the Tigers with a top-15 transfer class, and Gates’s freshmen class, headlined by Annor Boateng, was ranked 5th.
Besides Boateng (ranked 26th in the 247Sports composite rankings), the haul also consists of Peyton Marshall (No. 69), Marcus Allen (No. 79), Trent Burns (No. 113), and T.O. Barrett (No. 164). Given the turnover from the previous season, along with the team’s general lack of success last year, there should be plenty of opportunity to be spread around in Columbia.
No matter the end product this year for Mizzou (all sources indicate a much improved roster), one thing will be certain- this is a completely new team compared to last year.
Click here to learn more about our preseason top 100 teams heading into the 2024-25 college basketball season.
Head coach: Dennis Gates (3rd season at Missouri, 14th season overall)
2023-24 record: 8-24 (0-18)
2024 postseason finish: No postseason
Notable departures:
- Sean East II (17.6 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 1.6 APG)
- Noah Carter (12.2 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 0.3 APG)
- Nick Honor (9.6 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 0.8 APG)
Notable non-conference games:
- at Memphis (Nov. 4)
- vs. Kansas (Dec. 8)
- vs. Illinois (Dec. 22)
Projected Rotation
PG: Tony Perkins (6-4, 200, Gr.)
2023-2024 stats: 14.0 PPG, 4.6 APG, 4.4 RPG
SG: Marques Warrick (6-3, 190, Gr.-Sr.)
2023-2024 stats: 19.9 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 2.4 APG (Northern Kentucky)
SF: Tamar Bates (6-5, 195, Sr.)
2023-2024 stats: 13.5 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 1.3 APG
PF: Mark Mitchell (6-9, 230, Jr.)
2023-2024 stats: 11.6 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 1.1 APG (Duke)
C: Peyton Marshall (7-0, 300, Fr.)
247Sports Composite #69 ranked recruit
6: Jacob Crews (6-8, 210, Gr.-Sr.)
2023-2024 stats: 19.1 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 1.1 APG (UT-Martin)
7: Anthony Robinson II (6-3, 180, So.)
2023-2024 stats: 3.9 PPG, 1.7 RPG, 1.0 APG, 1.3 SPG
8: Annor Boateng (6-6, 215, Fr.)
247Sports Composite #26 ranked recruit
9: Caleb Grill (6-3, 205, Gr.-Sr.)
2023-2024 stats: 8.4 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.4 APG
10: Aidan Shaw (6-9, 210, Jr.)
2023-24 stats: 3.6 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 0.4 APG
11: Josh Gray (7-0, 260, Gr.-Sr.)
2023-24 stats: 3.2 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 0.5 APG (South Carolina)
12: Marcus Allen (6-7, 220, Fr.)
247Sports Composite #79 ranked recruit
13: T.O. Barrett (6-4, 200, Fr.)
247Sports Composite #164 ranked recruit
14: Trent Pierce (6-10, 220, So.)
2023-24 stats: 1.8 PPG, 1.2 RPG, 0.0 APG
15: Trent Burns (7-5, 235, Fr.)
247Sports Composite #113 ranked recruit
Missouri Basketball Team MVP: Tamar Bates
Bates showed plenty of potential last season, and benefits from being in Gates’s system for a year already. Despite most of last year’s transfer portal class fizzling out, Bates was one of the bright spots, more than doubling his 2022-23 PPG mark (6.1) in his first year in Columbia, with his 13.5 PPG output placing him second on the team behind Sean East II in that category. Not only was he reliable behind the arc with a 38.5 3PT%, but his 92.6 FT% was best in the SEC and 6th nationally amongst qualifying players. Bates can shoot, plain and simple.
With East II and Honor gone, the backcourt is all Tamar’s to take. Tony Perkins and Marques Warrick transfer in, and all of a sudden, Bates is the returning veteran. In today’s college basketball world, a lot can change in an offseason. But certain things likely won’t change, that being Bates putting the ball in the basket. Just going back to a stat for a second, 92.6 FT% on 88-95 shooting from the line? Take that fully in. Bates is in the discussion for best shooter in the SEC, and I feel like we’re just starting to see the potential that made him a top-30 recruit in the Class of 2021. Look out, he’s here.
Missouri Basketball make-or-break player: Anthony Robinson II
Lost in the influx of transfers and high-caliber freshmen is the returning guard Anthony Robinson II. Despite the team’s struggles throughout the year, Robinson II was phenomenal on defense, posting the highest defensive box plus/minus on the team (by a wide margin), rating second on the team in defensive win shares, first in steal percentage (5.5%, would be highest in the SEC if Robinson II collected enough minutes played), and first in defensive rating, a series of statistical achievements made particularly impressive by the fact that Robinson was a freshman playing a gauntlet of a schedule.
Despite tallying just three games with 20+ minutes played, Robinson had seven games with 3+ steals, with four of those contests coming against Power 6 opponents. But it wasn’t just defensive production that Robinson contributed last season. He was 3rd on the team in assists/40 minutes with 2.9, yet had the 3rd-lowest turnover rate/40 minutes with just 1.4 giveaways. “Does Anthony Robinson II have the frame to compete in the SEC?” I think that’s a dumb question. Sure, he’s not the biggest guard on the court. But it really doesn’t matter when Mark Mitchell is at the four and the average center height on this team is 7’2”. Additionally, Robinson II is the same height and weight as Sean East II, last year’s MVP. I don’t think anyone has actually asked the above question, but it still needed to be answered affirmatively. Robinson II can be this year’s glue guy for the Tigers.
Key analytic: Free-throw percentage
Despite producing a not-so-great 31.9 3PT% last year, good for 289th in D-1, Missouri managed a 79.2 FT%, 6th in the country. What’s the deal with such a large discrepancy in shooting prowess? For starters, seven Tigers had at least 20 3PA on the season with a 3PT% of less than 30.0%, those being Caleb Grill, Noah Carter, Connor Vanover, Curt Lewis, Anthony Robinson, Trent Pierce, and Jordan Butler. Combined, that set of players shot 82-329 from deep, a 24.9 3PT%. But that same group of players was 154-209 from the line, a 73.7 FT%, not the best but certainly not horrible.
Excluding the trio of Sean East II (45.0 3PT%/85.6 FT%), Tamar Bates (38.5 3PT%/92.6 FT%), and Nick Honor (36.5 3PT%/86.1 FT%), a good portion of the Missouri Tigers couldn’t be counted on to make a three consistently, but could hit a free throw. This could come down to multiple reasons, but the most likely is simply lack of ball movement and spacing on offense. Regardless of if a shooter can knock down a three easily, if the offense is able to manufacture open looks, it’s going to be much more difficult, especially compared to a free throw.
Does this team have the ability to create open opportunities for shooters? Do the team’s shooters have the ability to create separation by themselves? Last year’s Missouri Tigers could shoot, for sure, but were unable to find open looks or formulate a clean offense. I don’t think that will be an issue this season, and these Tigers will surprise. (In a good way, of course.)
Missouri Basketball 2024-25 projections
Projected conference finish: 12th in the SEC
Projected postseason ceiling: NCAA Tournament Round of 32 Exit