Basketbullets: Michigan State Part I Comment Count

Brian

16201519908_b6a2d9dd87_z

[Marc Gregor]

Same business. I already wrote the column about John Beilein as MacGuyver, and this was more of that, except moreso. After ten minutes of post-game frustration, I have the same emotional reaction to beating Nebraska handily at home as losing in OT on the road to MSU down LeVert and Walton (and DJ Wilson and Mark Donnal and those five guys in the NBA): wow.

Once we have experience/players they'll get back to it. It's unfortunate they ended up on the wrong side of a couple of games that look like they'll prevent them from getting to the tournament. Let's see what the guys can do for the rest of the year and then go into next year with confidence. And so forth and so on.

MAAR/RAHK. In a meme:

MAAR had an efficient 18 points on 14 shots and a few rebounds. He didn't exactly fill up the box score—just one assist and one TO and a bunch of zeroes places other than points—but Michigan needs points more than anything else.

via UMHoops

MAAR's ability to get to the basket and hit contested layups is a foundation for expanding his game. Once teams start to focus on him that will hopefully lead to more good looks for other people.

Autobench. In fact Michigan lost this game because MAAR picked up two first half fouls, leading to an extended period with Andrew Dakich on the court. Dakich played 16 minutes, attempted one shot, got one rebound, and turned the ball over once. Replace a few of those minutes with MAAR minutes and that's probably worth another few points—in his absence defaulted to posting Max Bielfeldt.

MAAR then finished with two fouls, frustratingly. I complain about this every time it happens but I'll keep complaining about it. Every year Beilein has one of the least foul-prone teams in the country, and every year he yanks an important player from the lineup for ten minutes because a guy who averages 2 fouls per 40 picks them up early. When that guy is a scholarship player who has some ability it's one thing. When it's a walk-on who was a few bounces of the ball away from a 16-minute trillion it's another.

I'm enjoying the scotch-tape-and-soda thing as far as it goes, but it is still frustrating to feel that you could have won this game if you'd just had faith a guy averaging 3.5 fouls per 4 could handle a few first-half minutes with two.

This is like timeout strategy with NFL coaches: even the best people are seemingly insane about it.

Assist drought. Michigan struggled through this game with a measly 8 assists (30% of their baskets). MSU was at 70%. That's the offense's struggle in a nutshell. There's a lot of one on one basketball and not much ability to find an open guy. Irvin actually led the team with three. That was the second straight game he'd managed that. Believe it or not, that's the first time in his career he's had back-to-back games of three+ assists.

Michigan has very little ability to penetrate without two of their big three, and unless MAAR develops into more of a point guard instead of a shooting guard that's going to persist. The offense's smoothness will require assists in the 15-18 range instead of the 8 number they've put up in many of their Big Ten games.

Irvin. A frustrating year from him, one in which he's suffered greatly from Michigan's general lack of shot generation. He's improved in that department, but he's gone from "zero" to "not much"; many of the shots he gets for himself are heavily contested bad ideas. As a result his efficiency went off a cliff. His assist rate remains well under 10 despite the recent surge-type event and he's not a plus rebounder on either end.

Early in the season I was hoping Irvin could become a "threes and" guy, whether that was threes and D or rebounding or shot generation. He hasn't really. It's not so much about the shooting. He's been hurt by Walton's evident lack of burst all season, and would no doubt be just as deadly as he was last year if he was getting the same shot quality. It's about how he tends to drift out of games when he's not scoring.

16119320349_1c8080353c_z

[Eric Upchurch]

Center spot. Bielfeldt hit some shots but not efficiently; he rebounded but was generally overwhelmed by MSU. He did screen much better than we've seen the freshmen do this year—too often they are imprecise and the screen just wastes time instead of creates room.

Michigan needed Doyle to have one of those games in which he seems like a future star; instead they got some iffy defense (he was too aggressive in the short corner in the 2-3) and one shot attempt in 15 minutes. He is a freshman post and so will be up and down for the next two years; really would have been nice to get a Syracuse-like performance from him.

We saw some brief passages with Bielfeldt at the 4 next to Doyle and I wonder if that'll be more common going forward when Donnal gets back. Against low-usage Big Ten 4s, Bielfeldt brings more rebounding, and if MAAR can pick up spot PG minutes that might be a way to prevent the dual-walkon backcourt we saw at the tail end of the first half.

Fifth year though, right? Michigan does not have any recruits in the 2015 class as of now; unless they do there seems to be no reason to not bring Bielfeldt back if he's willing. I know he was thinking about heading elsewhere for his final year so that he could get some playing time… but he is getting some now and I don't see why that would not be the case next year as well.

Comments

dragonchild

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:25 PM ^

Around the league AND NBA, I see players hitting the bench when they hit two fouls.

It's baffling.  If the guy fouls out then yeah, you might miss him for the last 2-3 minutes of the game.  But every second he's sitting with 2 fouls is bench time YOU control.  If you sit him for 5 minutes to make sure he's there for the last 2, what have you gained?  If you're down 4 points late, it might just be because the opponent went on a run while your best player was just another spectator?

MGoBender

February 2nd, 2015 at 7:11 PM ^

It's baffling.  If the guy fouls out then yeah, you might miss him for the last 2-3 minutes of the game.  But every second he's sitting with 2 fouls is bench time YOU control.  If you sit him for 5 minutes to make sure he's there for the last 2, what have you gained?  If you're down 4 points late, it might just be because the opponent went on a run while your best player was just another spectator?

This assumes that minutes in the first half are just as important as the last 3 minutes of a game.  They are not.  

Brian likes to point out Fouls Per 40 as a reason to not bench a guy, but he ignores the fact that benching a guy may be precisely what is causing a low FP40 number.

There's always many factors that go into it.  IIRC, Spike played with 2 fouls in the first half.

If you can buy 5 minutes with a 2-foul player on the bench without the score difference changing, that's a win because it's more important to half that player on the court at the end of the game.  You can adjust to things that happen in the first half.  You can't adjust to a team going on a 6-0 run with 35 seconds left in the game.

MGoBender

February 3rd, 2015 at 6:59 AM ^

No, it's not sentiment. It has to do with what you can react to. You can change in-game decisions after a 5-min stretch in the first half. You can recover from whatever or adjust to whatever. You can't do that in the final minutes.

Like in my example, you can recover from a 6-0 run in a tie game in the first half. You give up a 6-0 run in the final 35 seconds of a tie game, you don't have time to recover.

The minutes are not the same.

MGoBender

February 3rd, 2015 at 7:03 AM ^

This still assumes no connection. There's usually a reason that player is getting fouls- often his matchup. You let a player stay in a matchup where he's getting beat, he's likely to pick up another foul or play lax defense.

What I'll do when I'm coaching is go zone if I feel I need a player out there who's in foul trouble. Easier to do at high school level than college.

There's always a trade off, obviously, and there's times when you have to play a guy a risk picking up serious foul trouble. However, if you can be nearly effective while avoiding that risk, it's not a bad tradeoff.

champswest

February 2nd, 2015 at 6:43 PM ^

I don't know if we will roll them at home or not, but I agree with your first point. I think Beilein and his staff are definately doing a better job. It may be style of play and style of coaching that are out of date. Personally, I think Izzo is too uptight, screams at his guys way too much and has them too worried about making a mistake.

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 3:39 PM ^

the MacGuyver narrative is on point with Donnal and Walton both down.  Chatman and Irvin were the only top 100 type recruits available, and Chatman is a extra-raw freshman who isn't ready.  When you're playing walk-ons significant minutes that is trouble in way that scholarship busts are not.

alum96

February 2nd, 2015 at 3:52 PM ^

Starting lineup game 1 this year:

  • Walton Jr
  • Caris
  • Irvin
  • Chatman
  • Donnal

Yesterday?  Strike 4 of those.

 

Excitment level/expectations of fanbase for true freshman coming into the year

  1. Chatman
  2. Wilson
  3. (tie) Doyle
  4. (tie) Dawkins
  5. MAAR

Excitement level/expectations today?

  1. MAAR
  2. (tie) Doyle
  3. (tie) Dawkins
  4. Wilson
  5. Chatman

 

Considering what was exected from this team and FROM whom.... and what is happening now and BY whom.... I have to put Coach Beilein in that Bill Snyder chair for college basketball.  A damn wizard

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 3:57 PM ^

It was one thing when Caris was hurt and Chatman was a disappointment.  Now you lose Donnal and Walton too?

I'm not big on evaluating against preseason expectations - because expectations are often very illogical and unfair - but Michigan clearly had a lot more raw material to work with at the start of the season.

 

alum96

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:19 PM ^

Yep, I am excited - real excited about next year.   MAAR has been a revelation.  Dawkins looks like yet another guy who is on the way of having a Beilein bump offseason - you see the raw material now.  Doyle is a big man and those guys need time but lacks stamina now - he should be better next year.  I have no expectation for Chatman but I just have to assume not everyone could be that wrong on him and he can at least be a rotation player you dont hang your head everytime he goes in, and DJ Wilson with 20 lbs on him should be a nice rotation guy next year. 

Then you throw Spike, Walton, Irvin, Donnal with those guys... and splash some Duncan Robinson and have you a 10 man rotation.  Should be competing for a Big 10 title.  First year in MANY we wont be relying on freshmen all over the place.  A welcome change.

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 5:15 PM ^

Yeah...Dawkins is interesting to think about.  I've been pigeon-holing him into a 3&D guy but his dribbling and passing might have some potential.  That said, he and MAAR are old for their class so don't expect a huge bump.  More Spike-level gradual improvement.

DJ Wilson could bump but he wasn't actually that much better than Chatman when he did play, other than not forcing things as much.  I suspect as a big man he'll follow closer to the Horford/McGary career arc than the Trey/Darius/Caris/Nik arc.

Next year's team could be good for sure.  But without Caris there still isn't an elite player on that team unless Walton or Irvin make the leap we hoped the would last year.  Basically, next year's team could be what we HOPED this years team could be before we knew how far away Chatman, Wilson, Donnal and Doyle all still were.

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:17 PM ^

The excitement level/expectations you listed are more or less a ranking of who matters more to the team right now.  But, knowing that freshman develop significantly you have to wonder what it will look like when these guys are all seniors and Spike, Zak, Derrick and Caris are all gone.  I think you could make a case for any of them (possible exception Donnal) being the best guy in the end.

My best guess:

1.  Chatman - sooo far away right now, but it appears to be 90% mental.  Here's a guy who is Jordan Morgan's size but can dribble, pass, and nail jumpers.  Needs to find himself - his role, his place, what he should and shouldn't be doing yet.  Still has more upside than anyone IMO.  Of course, you can't ignore the chance that he's a bust either, but I'm optimistic he can turn it around.  People need to remember what a leap it is to playing low level HS ball in Oregon to playing in the Big 10.

2.  Dawkins - those hops!  that jump shot!  I think there's a solid chance we have an NBA-caliber 3&D on our hands and he's a classic Beilein wing.  I think he'll be a 4-year starter for us.

3.  Wilson - I think it's going to take  2 or 3 years. Like Chatman, you knew he was going to be raw. Has to get stronger.  Projects as as a very good version of Bielfeldt in terms of being able to draw centers away form the rim on offense....and a potential difference-maker on D.  He's at a similar size as Horford and Morgan were as freshman and it wouldn't surprise me if he evolves into the starting 5-man at some point.

4.  Doyle - always going to be limited by a lack of rim protection and athleticism, but his arms and physicality make him a legit Beilein center.  It's going to be fun watching Beilein modify his gameplans to include post touches.  Has he had a true low-block threat like Rickey before?  I love the potential pairing with Chatman on offense.  Can he overcome his limitations on defense and become like Morgan in being at the right place at the right time consistently. I think he can.

5.  MAAR - Just a fun guy to watch.  So crafty with the ball and what outstanding composure.  But, he's already the same age as Caris and seems like a guy that will struggle to find a major role off the ball when more talented players are back.  Seems like an impactful 6th man type and fan favorite.

6.  Donnal - At this point it's unclear if he's a Big10 caliber player. Not big enough to bang, not skilled enough to play the 4.  Could be a quality backup though.

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 9:55 PM ^

Was to differentiate between NOW and the future.

If you went by NOW half way through their freshman year, Burke was a diminutive PG who wasn't a great passer or shooter and Stauskas was a spot-up shooter who struggled in one-on-one.  Morgan was too skinny and couldn't finish.  Douglass and Novak certainly weren't big-10 caliber players. etc.

Chatman has hit some very nice mid-range jumpers.  His 3s have good arc and solid rotation.  He is probably shooting 20% on layups.  Clearly, he can do a lot better than he has done now.  He's had some very good moments...they're just the exception right now.  It's reasonable to think it's possible that will change...or even that it is PROBABLE that it will.

He's raw, he was always going to be raw.  The question is if he will get better.  I think yes, but nobody knows for sure.

Alumnus93

February 2nd, 2015 at 7:48 PM ^

Boy do I disagree with your take on MAAR. After what I saw the past few games, I view him more valuable than Walton going forward. A sixth man you say? I view him in our top 3 players. I could be affected by Walton's injured play lately, because without him we don't beat Msu last year in EL. But I think you're grossly undervaluing MAAR. The guy is improving drastically, each game.

J.Madrox

February 2nd, 2015 at 8:35 PM ^

I think you are grossly undervaluing Walton. There were times down the stretch last year where he stepped up and carried Michigan in tight situations, and he has continued to hit some clutch free throws.

If you are saying MAAR is more valuable than an injured Walton, I might believe that, but there is no way he is more valuable than a healthy Walton. Walton had 7 games with 10+ points in Big Ten play last year, including 19 in the win at MSU last year. This was on a team with Big Ten POY Stauskas, 2nd rounder GRIII and future first round pick Levert.

When healthy Walton is the second best player on this team. MAAR is good and improving, but is not more valuable than a healthy Walton.

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 9:50 PM ^

You are familiar with the concept of "Big stats on a bad team" guys.  These are good players, but if you put them on a good team, they struggle, because they need the ball to thrive, yet they aren't good enough to lead a team to victory.

Iverson was the best example of this. He was so good that his team actually made the finals, but literally everyone around him had to complement his unique game.  But put him on a team where he was the 4th best player and he wasn't nearly as effective.

In other words, there's only one ball.  MAAR may be the 4th or 5th best 1-on-1 player on the team.  But if you have Caris, Derrik, Spike, and Zak...do you need another guy dominating the ball and taking shots?

In other other words - the ceiling of a team where MAAR is the leading scorer is not very high.

So yeah, he's going to be HUGE for this team the rest of the season, but this isn't an NCAA tournament team if it's going to be led by Spike and MAAR.

alum96

February 2nd, 2015 at 3:41 PM ^

Remember... losing all these players for UM was a source of inspiration and helped us to play better.  That also applied to Nebraska when their 2nd best player was ejected 3 minutes into the game.  ONLY AT MSU does losing players NOT provide a source of inspiration and improve your team.

p.s. who on Jan 1st thought they'd say "Losing MAAR 10 minutes into the first half totally threw our offense on its head and led to 10 minutes of yuckiness and let ABC team back into the game...."?

I am not going to pile on the Kam Chatman train but man if that guy would provide us anything this and Wisconsin were 2 games we would have won.

J.Madrox

February 2nd, 2015 at 3:45 PM ^

Am I just grasping at straws when I think by refusing to budge on his foul policy while Michigan was still hanging tough in the first half it allowed Beilein to play MAAR for the whole second half without fear of fatigue? I just wonder how much the increased minutes are affecting some of these guys, especially when it looked like the whole team was pretty much spent in overtime vs. both Wisconsin and MSU.

I am not saying rest is the reason MAAR was stapled to the bench, just wondering if I am crazy for thinking it helped him down the stretch. Not that guys should need much rest with the insane number of time outs, official or otherwise, there were in the second half yesterday.

alum96

February 2nd, 2015 at 3:55 PM ^

Nah man.  He played almost the entire 2nd half.  The way you fight fatigue for a guy who has not played that much all year is give him breaks throughout the game.  Not "rest" him for 10 minutes straight of game time or 25-30 minutes in real time.  You'd take him out at the 10 minute mark with 2 fouls to go and then throw him back with 5 minutes to go in the half which would give him a great breather.  He was totally exhausted by the end of the game - if you notice he was deferring everything in the last 3-4 minutes and the OT he was nowhere to be found.  His stamina has not been built for that sort of playing time - guy was a DNP or 2-4 minute a night guy thru mid January.

J.Madrox

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:00 PM ^

I didn't think I was right, but always enjoy getting another opinion. The injuries aren't just taking out Michigan's best players it is also forcing more minutes on an increasingly small number of players. I don't like Michigan's chances in any overtime games they get into going forward.

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 3:55 PM ^

Maybe we should stop expecting the wings that play the 4 spot in Beilein's system to be rebounders. 

"he's not a plus rebounder" targets include Irvin and GR3 and applied to Novak and Sims as well.  Has ANY Beilein 4 been a good rebounder?  Not that I can recall at Michigan.  Does Beilein view this as a problem?  It doesn't appear so.

Irvin spent most of his time guarding MSU's centers last game (as Bielfeldt and Doyle were tasked with Dawson).  Zak was giving up 3 inches and 30 pounds. He was also the primary focus of the defense (read clutching, grabbing, slapping) on the other end, is a 3 point shooter unlikely to pick up ORB to boost his numbers, AND he led the team in minutes played. Kid played a gritty game and his passing has clearly improved (the major critique a few weeks ago). 

I realize he isn't Nik offensively but damn...let's give our best player left standing a little credit.

It seems like 3-star recruits get a free pass for their deficiencies while the 4-stars can't do anything right unless they are Big 10 player of the year.

 

 

J.Madrox

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:05 PM ^

I don't disagree with anything you said, I think fans (myself included at times) get to caught up in what their expectations are. Irvin was a 4.5 star player coming out of high school, so everyone expects him to great all the time, same with Chatman. A guy like Donnal gets a lot of criticism because he was a 4 star and in his redshirt freshman year he hasn't played well or consistently very often.

But no one expects much from Dawkins, MAAR, or Spike before them initially, so anything they give the team is a positive and whenever they make mistakes its just chalked up to the reason they were 3 stars.

Not trying to criticize people, I do the same thing with expectations, but sometimes we all need to take a step back and appreciate the things some of the players are doing well, especially in a tough spot right now.

 

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:27 PM ^

But this is exactly what I've been trying to say on this board over the last year or so. 

Glen Robinson was a vastly superior player to Zack Novak and the team's fate immediatly skyrocketed with him at the 4...but praise for Zack was bordering on idolatry while GR3 was criticized almost constantly through his year and a half on campus. 

As the team struggled this season Caris was routinely criticized even though most of his numbers were better than last year, despite increased defensive attention and vastly more responsibilities on both ends of the floor.  Caris was having a very good year.  The team was not.  These two things were getting mixed up IMO.

I get that emotions are part of fandom and we all like the underdog narrative, but there's a point where you have to be reasonable and appreciate the players who are good, even if they don't quite reach the heights we hope for them.

J.Madrox

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:43 PM ^

With a lot of this it is difficult to fully appreciate it when the guy is playing at Michigan and its only after they leave that people realize how good they actually were.

I know I often got annoyed with Morgan's limitations as a basketball player, but toward the end of last year and now that he is gone I have come to appreciate all the little things he did well and really wish he was still on this team.

GRIII came in with too much promise and potential, we were told as fans he could potentially be a 1 and done, but he wasn't and thats ok, he still did a lot of things well and it would be really nice to have him on this years team.

Either way, I don't think it is something that will ever change, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to get people to appreciate what the players do contribute.

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:59 PM ^

With the struggles we are seeing this year, I thought people might reflect and give him some praise.  Doesn't seem to be the case.

GR3 was a big part of why Michigan's D was decent despite being undersized as a unit.

Offensively he had tremendous 'gravity' and instincts.  Nobody wanted to get posterized by him, so a lot of the holes that you saw created for Trey and Nik were the result of people keeping one eye on the high-flyer coming from the wing.  GR3 was decisive with his cuts to the rim and the high probability of him throwing down was a MAJOR asset for our guards. He was also a pretty decent mid-range shooter -- another skill that tends to get underrated.

Dunks are overrated by most casual fans, but there's a large segement that takes them for granted because it's not viewed as a refined skill or indicator of hard work.  So what -- it's still invaluable to a team to have a guy like that - just as it is to have a 40% shooter from 3. 

gpsimms not to…

February 2nd, 2015 at 6:38 PM ^

Mainly, I take issue with your statement that GR3 was a big part of the reason our defense was decent.  Last year's defense was pathetic, the worst JB has ever coached at Michigan (including the 10-22 year!).  GR3 had a lower DReb% than Novak and Chatman, and about the same as Irvin's. It is hard to measure individual contribution, but GR3 played on the worst defensive team JB has ever coached at Michigan, so it couldn't have been that good.

I agree his cutting was a reasonably big part of the offensive success the last two years,  but I'd say Stauskas is the guy we miss.  Imagine if Irvin was sitting in the corner getting wide open 3s and making 35-40% of them, instead of GR3's 30%.  I kind of think that'd make up for the residual effect of everyone's "being worried about getting posterized."

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 8:20 PM ^

However, the previous season they ranked 48th according to Kennpom. (Note - better than the previous year with Senior Novak).  The massive drop can be attributed to the changes in personnel.  Namely, Trey and THJ out.  Stauskas and Spike and Zak took up a lot more minutes -- and there's your defensive decline right there.  Nik's reputation for horrendous D is well established, and if you watch those Klay Thompson highlights when he had 37 points in one quarter, a big chunk of them were on Nik.

DRB% is not a good measure of defense.  Beilein's 4-man never has a good DRB%.  Beilein doesn't seem to mind. 

The idea that Irvin is or was better than GR3 is laughable.  Last year Irvin knocked down more than 45% of his 3s.  Beilein didn't start him over GR3. For good reason -- GR3 was very bad at D and still struggles with it pretty regularly.  On offense - certainly 3s are valuable.  My point was that GR3 brought a package of skills that create a similar effect of spacing the floor.  He could hit 3s reasonably enough to be respected, was a very good mid-range shooter, and was a destroyer of worlds on alley-oops.

J.Madrox

February 2nd, 2015 at 8:45 PM ^

I don't know how good or bad GRIII's defense really was last year, but there is no way he bears the brunt of the blame for the teams struggles defensively. He may not have been the best, but he certainly was not the worst, he was also constantly asked to guard guys bigger and more physical then him, without complaint.

In addition, of course Michigan misses Stauskas more than GRIII, one of them was the Big Ten POY and a lottery pick, the other was a second rounder. But simply because Stauskas was better, doesn't mean Michigan doesn't miss GRIII as well.

I like Dawkins, and he has some good hops, but I don't think Michigan will ever have anyone with the same athleticism and explosiveness as GRIII has. He was an absolute force on the fast break, and a dangerous weapon when cutting in the half court. He was not the best or most valuable player Michigan ever had, but the amount of dislike directed his way from some Michigan fans is misplaced.

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 9:43 PM ^

But it's not as cut-and-dried as most would think for who would be more valuable to this year's team (assuming Spike, Derrick, Caris, Zak, Dawkins, and MAAR are all healthy).

The main reason Michigan has stuggled so badly this season is replacing its entire front-court with inexperienced freshman (with Zak sliding to the 4 nearly fulltime to mitigate).

If GR3 was around, most of the early season problems would have gone away.  You could say the same for Morgan, McGary or even Horford.  A returning vet would have been a stabilizing force on the entire team.

Point is -- this team needed a frontcourt player back more than it needed another guard.

Of course now, with everybody hurt, it's a no-brainer.  Nik would be a season-changer.  And Dawkins and Irvin seem relatively OK at the 4 spot.

alum96

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:14 PM ^

Zak is a "4" but just barely - he was the 28th player in the country per 247 compsitive  I am not sure where the 5 cutoff is but it couldnt have been more than 1-2 players away.  Same with Chatman.

I think Zak is stuck in the same situation as GR3 was.  We didnt have a natural 4 so GR3 played it rather than 3.  That was unfair of him defensively as he often played much more physical players with more size. Now Zak is playing "4ish" when Dawkins is not in, because our freshman who was supposed to play it is currently a washout.  (Doesnt mean forever, but for this year).  I was frustrated like hell watching Matt frigging Costello look like a pogo stick versus our team - we made him look good, he is a generally  unathletic big but he was being guarded/ boxed out by guys like Irvin MAAR and I even saw him up against SPike a time or two on switches and under our basket.

I don't think it's asking much to have high expectations for the 20th-30th ranked player in the country.  Melo, Blackmon, Russell are all in that range and all dominant as 1st year freshman.  Zak is in his 2nd year under excellent coaching and was not asked to do things Indiana/OSU/Maryland asked of their high ranking freshman last year so had a year to ease into things.  People expected a larger jump his 2nd year and it has not happened...his game is pretty much the same.  Brian making a note of that is not being harsh on a guy.

 

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:51 PM ^

Zak is our best remaining player. He's probably headed toward the NBA at some point. He is clearly improving, just as THJ did, from being 'just a shooter'. He is working outside his 'natural' position at the request of our staff.  He is playing unselfishly and working hard.  Is this really a guy we want to spend time criticizing?  Because Rivals ranks him in the top 40?

I really do get that it's OK to have expectations for people.  But when those expectations start to frame up a narrative wherein inferior players are praised and superior players are criticized it becomes a problem.  Our expectations are not facts - they are subjective forecasts.  Even if they come from published 'star rankings'.  Even if they are based on physical measureables.

As for positions...

I think we should mostly consider the 2-4 positions to be all but interchangeable in the Beilein system on offense.  With Manny Harris and MAAR and Caris and Nik often doubling as de facto PGs, the positions get even less meaningful.  It seems like it's a true 4-OUT/1-IN system with more or less ball-handling duties going to the '4' depending on his skillset.  But that's offense.

On defense, basically it's whoever the biggest guard is.  Sure JB has toyed with Chatman (who really is a jumbo guard right now, which is part of the problem because he PLAYS like it) and McGary at the 4 and did run Sims and Smotrycz as legit 4s a good bit -- but mostly he has always ended up with wing-type playing there.  It's mostly by choice until he lands a Kevin Looney or Carmelo type.  He's not recruiting the same type of banging 4-men that Pitino and Izzo favor.  Again, this is by design.  Beilein is willing to accept the benefit/cost equation of playing a small 4-man.

Yesterday - I think he was trying to temp the MSU offense into a bunch of post-up attempts to their marginal centers.  He knew they'd get some but he also knew it meant their least skilled offensive players would be the focus of the offense.

...

m1jjb00

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:00 PM ^

One possible defense is that the knowledge that you're sitting at two might make you more careful to avoid fouling.  In other words, maybe Belein's teams don't foul a lot is that players know that they'll be punished.  One could make coutnerarguments including you may not want players thinking that way.  I dunno.  Just throwing it out there.

AC1997

February 2nd, 2015 at 4:47 PM ^

I was frustrated by the auto-bench also, mostly for the duration.  I don't have a problem with him benching the players for a while since they got those fouls so early, but he stuck with the walk-ons for too long.  He eventually brought Spike back in with two fouls, but it was just too long without them.  Then again, I also understand the argument that Spike and Rahk played the entire second half, which may not have been possible otherwise.  And those were more important minutes than the end of the first half.....I guess.  

 

Brian - do you have the ability to send someone to attend Beilein's pressers and ask questions like these?  You have done a great job with the football coaches of asking intelligent questions, how about basketball?

 

As for Irvin, I was actually encouraged by his game against MSU.  I thought he handled the ball better than I've seen before and actively attacked the rim unlike any other game.  Sure, he got some layups blocked and didn't get any calls - but he was far from one-dimensional.  I look at the last two games and finally see a trajectory for Irvin that I hadn't seen before.  

 

Doyle just isn't athletic enough against a team like MSU.  I liked the lineup with him and Beilfeldt at times because it matched up well.  But Doyle just isn't fast enough to hedge and recover or keep up with the MSU bigs on the break. 

Space Coyote

February 2nd, 2015 at 5:39 PM ^

Coaches, who apparently are on the same page with this thing, always give the answer that "players with fouls may start to play scared on defense or passive on offense because they are worried about picking up another foul". I think there is a certain truth to that. They'll also say something about wanting those guys "in crunch time down the stretch". Again, some truth to it (better players tend to improve down the stretch, worse players tend to get worse), but again, what's the benefit of missing 10 minutes for playing two down the stretch? Again, think there is some truth to what they say, but the rule just doesn't have the flexibility I think it should.

I also think the "averages two fouls a game" thing needs a pinch of salt with it. There is some truth that he doesn't average enough to really threaten to foul out, but it may also mean that he's struggling with a defensive match up, he's struggling keeping his emotions in check in a big game, he's struggling due to fatigue he isn't used to. So with a freshman like MAAR, I think there is something to be said about keeping him on the bench. In a vacuum, I don't have a bone to pick with keep MAAR out due to foul trouble.

He did bring Spike back in eventually, which makes more sense because he's used to playing those minutes and has been around the block once or twice. Burke in the national championship game was some what understandable because Spike went off. But typically, given the situation Michigan was in, I'd be much more prone to play a guy like Spike despite his two fouls. At some point you are just losing minutes on a guy, and a guy that's that experienced understands a bit better how not to foul while still playing at the level he needs to. MAAR I'm less comfortable with. If he picks up a third, which for a freshman in that situation is a real possibility, your looking at holding him out for a real extended period of time (psychologically, three is a lot harder to get over than two, and four will have real implications).

Roggin

February 2nd, 2015 at 5:57 PM ^

What's the deal with Chatman? Seriously. The kid looks completely lost on every single possession. He jacks up an ill-advised shot (almost always an airball or a brick) whenever he gets the ball within 30 feet of the basket. Otherwise, he dribbles the air out of the ball in until he turns it over. On the other end of the court, he misses assignments, plays man-to-man when we are playing zone (and vice versa) and gets out-rebounded and out-muscled by smaller opposing players. In fact, the only consistent thing about his game is that he looks lost on both ends of the court.

UMaD

February 2nd, 2015 at 8:27 PM ^

Played at an extremely low level of HS competion. It's tough to go from being able to do everything better than everyone to a role of a specialist without a specialty.

Chatman's game doesn't fit Beilein's model, so it will take some adjusting on both ends.

He's a very raw freshman, and everyone should be patient.