Missouri’s Porter rusty in his return
Even for our instant reaction, hot take, recency bias-fueled world of sports commentary, it would be beyond parody to draw any conclusion about the future of Michael Porter Jr. based on his performance Thursday, as rough as it was.
But it’s not a stretch to wonder whether Porter’s much-hyped March insertion into Missouri’s lineup has any real upside for anyone, including the team that four months ago believed he would be its best player
and perhaps one of the best in the country.
Despite Thursday’s ugly 62-60 loss to Georgia in the Southeastern Conference tournament, Missouri is going to be in the NCAA tournament when the brackets are released Sunday. Fortunately for the Tigers, that much was determined before they stepped foot on the floor in St. Louis, because nothing they did against the Bulldogs would have impressed the selection committee had there been a bid on the line.
In theory, the security of their place in the field should have given coach Cuonzo Martin some runway to integrate Porter before next week, perhaps elevating his team’s ceiling to the second weekend or beyond.
That’s the potentially fun story line. That’s the dream Missouri fans had when whispers and cryptic social media posts a month ago began to indicate that Porter might recover from his back surgery in time to play this season rather than be one (minute) and done in college basketball.
But in the real world, where young bodies aren’t meant to function at their highest level after being out of competition for an entire regular season, it sure looked like Missouri accomplished little by bringing Porter back. Instead, it added uncertainty at a time of the year when it’s usually more productive for a team to know exactly who it is.
You can’t hold Porter’s performance against him. He finished with 12 points and eight rebounds, which is certainly respectable for a freshman’s college debut. But the rust was considerable, as Porter madefive of 17 field goal attempts and didn’t look real comfortable at times with the speed of the game or with his shooting rhythm in the framework of a halfcourt offense.
But that’s pretty much to be expected, even for someone who came in with Porter’s reputation as a top-three prospect. If you’re one of those eight NBA teams locked in a death struggle at the bottom of the standings to eventually get the most ping-pong balls, this is a complete write-off in his draft evaluation.
When I watched Missouri practice in the preseason while working on a feature about Porter, it was hard not to see a potential Kevin Durant-type wing with guard skills, that lithe 6-10 body with skinny legs and a jumper with a beautiful, quick release.
Porter is still potentially that kind of player, and it’s a shame we didn’t get to see him prove it in college. But asking him to do it now — and for Missouri to adapt to playing with him at this stage of the game — seems more like a fantasy than a real boost to the Tigers’ chances of advancing in March.
There’s little doubt that Porter, if he had a couple of more weeks and a few more games, could have settled in to a productive role for Missouri and perhaps been an X factor in a deep tournament run.
He’s that naturally gifted, and college basketball this year is so volatile that his talent could have made the difference between an early exit and a Sweet 16.
Porter, of course, deserves the opportunity to play if he’s healthy and willing. It’s commendable he even wanted to try.
But after watching such an effortless scorer labor for points against Georgia — as anyone would under that set of circumstances — it might be too late to matter.