Rawls if he can hang onto it, I'd guesss
Beilein Ceiling Five Times Fast
Filed under:
In the aftermath of Michigan's first tourney bid in forever and the looming (as in 2010) departures of the two guys who were the engine behind that bid there's been a lot of discussion about what we can expect in the future when Beilein doesn't have the services of two stars who wanted to play for someone else. There was a mailbag. There has been talking in comments and on blogs and on message boards. A winding response to various opinions follows.
It Can Work
Excellent diary from Bronxblue on the Beilein thing and potential ceilings it may have:
[Beilein's] system was designed to compensate for the lack of the "big time" star. The heavy reliance on three pointers that is a hallmark of his offense is designed to compensate for the lack of a post threat and/or a dynamic finisher around the basket. Similarly, the 1-3-1 was designed to create turnovers as a way to compensate for little interior defense from a dominant inside presence. …
Unfortunately … this type of system has a finite level of potential success - something I'll refer to as the Mid-Major Ceiling (MMC). Look at teams like Gonzaga (though their recruiting has gotten better over the years), Xavier, Creighton, and throw WVU into that mix (though they come from a major conference, they would never have succeeded in the Big East simply trying to out-recruit other teams). While they all are/were consistent NCAA teams, none ever made it past the Elite 8 (except George Mason, which was the flukiest of fluky runs), and even getting past the Sweet 16 was a crapshoot. The reason for this, at least in my opinion, was due to the fact that they inevitably ran into a team whose talent was great enough to expose the deficiencies each of those systems was designed to hide.
I don't think that necessarily has to be the case. John Hollinger put out an article earlier this year noting that the percentage of three-pointers attempted in the NBA is rising relentlessly, and the teams that are playing better than expected are doing it with the longball. Check it:
In fact, few stats correlate better with winning than 3-point attempts. If you tell me only how many 3-pointers a team has chucked up this season and provide no other information, I can tell you whether it is a winning team and be right eight times out of 10.
Check this out: The teams in the top 10 in 3-point attempts per field goal attempt have a combined winning percentage of .593 … and those in the bottom 10 have a combined winning percentage of .400.
That's no accident. Three-point attempts have correlated highly with winning for the past several years.
Now, the NBA is a completely different animal where just about everyone can shoot and everyone has legitimate post players, but that's just attempts, not actually making them.
| % | Rank | eFG% | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Twos | 50.4 | 82nd | 50.4 |
| Threes | 33.4 | 195th | 50.1 |
You can see the power of the three-pointer in Michigan's numbers this year, which are at right: though Michigan was well above average at making their twos and well below average at making their threes, the eFG numbers are almost identical. If Michigan was even a little less unbalanced, the torrent of threes they jacked up would be a net benefit even though the stats would say they're better at twos.
Okay, yes, this sort of analysis misses a ton of factors: drawing fouls (advantage twos), turning the ball over (advantage threes), offensive rebounds(?). Also you just can't shoot all threes. Some percentage of Michigan's threes are really good looks, and those have the best percentage. Some percentage of them are okay looks, and those have an okay percentage. And some of them are "Manny… no!" or "Stu… no!" shots that have a poor percentage. Threes Michigan didn't shoot were bad shots indeed.
But the raw data from a place where the talent is much more evenly distributed is that if you can put together a team that takes a ton of threes you will be pretty good. Jackin' it up doesn't concede defeat.
As to the 1-3-1, we have not yet seen the full annoying extent of its power, not with 5'9" point guards and 6'4" power forwards and so on and so forth. When there's one guy shorter than 6'6" on the court and they've all got long arms it becomes much more of an issue. And I disagree with Bronxblue's characterization of it. The 1-3-1 doesn't seem like a necessary response to deficient talent, it seems like a way for Beilein to run his perimeter-heavy, three-mad offense without getting crushed on the defensive end. Beilein didn't have a talent disadvantage at Cansisus or Richmond, at least not an insurmountable one, and that's where his system was developed.
Take Evan Smotrycz. He's 6'9" but a stick. He's a super tall small forward and will remain that way if Beilein has anything to do with it. If asked to check a post player in man-to-man he won't do well. He'll do better than Zach Novak, but not well. If stuck on the wing in the 1-3-1 he'll make the skip passes that are its achilles heel long, looping, fruitless things, and then Beilein gets to use a 6'9" three-point shooting small forward on the offensive end.
The 1-3-1 and the Beilein offense have synergy, which is a horrible corporate word that happens to be useful. I don't think they're responses to a lack of talent, I think they're a single way of having an unusual system that happens to be unusually efficient at basketball.
Put it this way: if Evan Smotrcyz turns out to be Dirk Nowitzki and Matt Vogrich turns out to be Kyle Korver Beilein's system isn't going to hold them back on their Final Four run.
Okay, Then, Why Did You Say This?
… in the mailbag that started this:
Michigan basically abdicated on being a powerhouse when they hired Beilein.
Because of Bob Huggins, basically. The year after Beilein left West Virginia, Huggins landed five-star Devin Ebanks, who originally committed to Indiana, seriously considered Memphis, and then ended up with Huggins. That's Kelvin Sampson, John Calipari, and a guy who had a 0.0% graduation rate at Cincinnati. He's a microcosm of why this blog has a tag called "basketball recruiting is dirty like dirt in a dirt sandwich."
Yes, it is possible to have a legit powerhouse without sketchy recruiting stuff going on but it takes time and tradition; Michigan isn't starting from square one on the latter but it's not far off after ten years of crap and scandal before that. Fair or not, the last thing anyone outside the Michigan fan community remembers as a positive for the program happened in 1989, which is 1) 20 years ago and 2) before anyone we're recruiting was born. So the only way to go from zero to powerhouse was to cut corners and hire a John Calipari. We did not do this.
I've read a lot of criticisms of this position that I'd like to address, and the best way is probably through a rare-but-deadly double reverse fisk. The WLA quibbled. Now comes the thunder:
-The question appears to be “can Beilein recruit like Izzo/Matta/whoever,” and the answer is very probably not.
Frankly, if this is the case, someone better inform Beilein. Brian waves off the 2010 targets Trey Zeigler, Casey Prather, and Will Regan, but, like, why? Prather, Ray McCallum, and Zeigler are respectively the #30, #56, and #75 recruits in the nation. Brian is appropriately skeptical of Michigan’s chances with Prather, but, as shown by Beilein’s near-steal of Nate Lubick from Duke, things can happen. Regardless, given Beilein’s snag of Darius Morris from across the country, the landing of highly-praised Matt Vogrich, and Michigan’s current lead for Zeigler - arguably the state’s best player - the evidence that Beilein can’t recruit on this level just doesn’t exist, unless you care to assume that Beilein’s recruiting won’t improve from Morgantown to Ann Arbor - a theory he’s already disproven.
Okay: I know we're all excited about Beilein's highest-rated recruits ever, but Morris is #77 on Rivals, #100 on ESPN, and an unranked three-star on Scout. Vogrich is #100 on Scout, #137 on Rivals, and unranked on ESPN. Those are the crown jewels of the class.
According to Rivals, the following Big Ten teams have two players rated higher than Michigan's two best in the 2009 class (ie: one higher than Morris, one higher than Vogrich): Michigan State, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota. At best Michigan has the fifth ranked class in the conference, with Wisconsin and Purdue not far off.
I didn't say Beilein can't "recruit on this level"; I said he can recruit like Izzo or Matta or anyone else who can expect to regularly assemble top 25 classes. Michigan's 2009 class does not dispel this idea. By the numbers Michigan will be operating at a talent deficit relative to the conference.
He is a guy who will bring guaranteed respectability, likeable teams, and a host of tourney bids with some fun runs to the Sweet 16 or whatever. Michigan basically abdicated on being a powerhouse when they hired Beilein.”
Look - a horrible Wisconsin team made the final four in the unwatchable Dick Bennett days. George Mason made it. Eighth-seeded Villanona and NC State won championships. Flukes? Definitely.
Again the talking is orthogonal to what I am saying. Sure, Michigan can get hot in a tourney and Pittsnogle their way to a final four at some point. It can happen. It nearly did for Beilein at West Virginia. But that doesn't mean it's likely to. "Not a powerhouse" does not mean "never makes Final Four." It means "is not likely to make Final Four."
Even if we move Brian’s argument out of the Tournament and into the realm of general regular-season success, the point seems to fizzle. As mentioned ad nauseum - Beilien started a walk-on point guard and two freshmen who would have been coming of Valparaiso’s bench barring Beilein’s desperation to bring in a few players upon his arrival in Ann Arbor. This Michigan team possibly had four players that had the talent to justify significant minutes in a major conference - Harris, Sims, Grady, and Lucas-Perry, and they still garnered a #10 seed and earned a second-round game in which they gave Oklahoma a tougher game than #3 seed Syracuse. With Michigan’s best recruiting class in years on the way and the probability of at least one additional top-100 player arriving the following year, is a #2 or #3 tournament seed that far out of the question?
You're just going to have to trust me on this: yes, it is that far out of the question. Michigan vastly exceeded expectations this year but on a possession-to-possession basis they finished 50th in the Kenpom rankings, which was sixth in the conference. They were three-point jacks away from losing to three different horrible teams and missing the tourney. One Big Ten team got a 2 or 3 seed and it was Michigan State, #8 in Kenpom. There is a huge gap between Michigan's team this year and the sort of seed expectation you just threw out, and more experience plus the 2009 recruiting class only gets you halfway there.
Why Am I Bothering With All This?
It really bothers me to see evidence of people going from "I hope we make the tourney before I die" to "Now we're Duke!" This WLA sentence is why this 2000 word post exists:
Comrades, now is a time for optimism.
How did we get to a spot where making the tourney most years with a few runs to the Sweet 16 (or beyond!) isn't optimistic? Am I crazy? If Beilein does nothing more than he did at West Virginia—mid-conference finishes with consistent tourney bids, no high seeds, lots of fun in the tourney—he'll be an absolute roaring success. If there's a time to complain about Morgan instead of Appling or a stunning lack of Final Fours, it's fifteen years from now, when someone else is the coach.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:55 PM | 
Brian, I pretty much agree
Brian, I pretty much agree
April 16th, 2009 at 2:08 PM |
The fluky thing is that they
The fluky thing is that they
The fluky thing is that they shouldn't have beaten any of them. Any given Sunday and whatnot, but 998/1000 times GMU doesn't make the Final Four; hence, they are fluky.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:45 PM |
My assertion about the
My assertion about the
My assertion about the relative flukiness of GMU stems from my belief that GMU was a Sweet 16 team that had an unbelievable run, one that coincided with some extremely favorable match-ups and, frankly, a bit of luck. If you played that run of games 100 times, I honestly do not believe that GMU would have won all of them more than 1 or 2 times. I mean, that team's best win prior to the tournament was a 3-point victory over Wichita St. in a Bracket Buster matchup, and didn't even win the CAA tournament auto-bid. This team was led by a bevy of seniors and executed their game plan perfectly, but based on the evidence before the tournament run, GMU was probably a Sweet 16 team, at best. I think it is also telling that since that magical run, the team has never advanced beyond the first round of the NCAA or the NIT, and previously had only reached the second round of any tournament twice, making the NIT 2nd round in 85-86 and 03-04.
The reason I mentioned GMU's run as being an outlier was because I figured people would point out that particular team as Example #1 why my argument was flawed, and I figured addressing an outlier was better up front than in the comments.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:08 PM |
Why would you only consider
Why would you only consider
Why would you only consider pre-tournament performance to determine if the run was a fluke? They beat 4 highly regarded teams to get to the final four, including the #1 overall seed for the tournament. That shows me that they were a good team.
You claim they could only have made that run 1 or 2 times out of 100 (which I think is a little low), but how many times out of 100 would ANY good team have made that streak? I think that is a poor reason to call a run "a fluke." Fact is, any time a team makes a final four when seeded 5th or lower, which happens on average every couple years, it is unlikely that the team would be able to repeat it. I don't think that makes all low seeded final four runs, flukes.
If you want to bash their run, use the fact that the talent drain of early entrants into the NBA draft had weakened the NCAA game to such a degree that a bunch of seniors without NBA talent could legitimately be considered one of the best teams in the country. With the one year requirement, George Mason's run is less likely to happen today.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:01 PM |
Everything you say here makes
Everything you say here makes
Everything you say here makes sense. I think if you had just worded the original prognosis differently than "basically abdicated on being a powerhouse," and specified that you were talking short-term, it would have gotten less of a response. (Long-term, who knows? What if we do catch fire and reach the Final Four one year? Recruiting then might become a lot easier.)
April 16th, 2009 at 2:06 PM |
Here! Here!
Here! Here!
Michigan was starting over with their program. They essentially got the death penalty. Amaker brought in some talent but didn't know what to do with it. Almost to a man his recruits left the program no better as a player than when they arrived.
I think it has been proven in college basketball that you don't need to have more than a couple of "very good" players to go far. You also are almost always better off having a nucleus of upper-classmen who know the system and don't make many mistakes than relying on wonderkid freshmen who are mostly playing like they would in a pick-up game on a playground.
Even Izzo tends to go after the solid but not spectacular player that he can groom for 3-4 years into his system. Beilein will do the same, perhaps with slightly less talent.
The expectations for Michigan right now should be exactly what Brian said - top half of the conference, consistent tournament bids, an outside shot of a run to the Elite 8 or Final Four if things bounce their way. What we don't know yet is what happens when we get that far.
For example, let's say Michigan improves a little next year and finishes 4th in the conference, gets a 7-seed or something, and makes a run to the sweet sixteen. Maybe now Michigan becomes attractive to more recruits. Maybe there's some future star in Detroit or Grand Rapids who will decide they want to go there. All it takes is a couple of guys and some good coaching and you're climbing that ladder.
MSU will always be ahead of Michigan while Izzo is there. OSU will always be willing to turn their program into an NBA farm team and mysteriously get top five recruiting classes year after year. The rest of the conference is going to fight each other for everything else.
AC-1997
April 16th, 2009 at 2:39 PM |
I agree that MSU is going to
I agree that MSU is going to
I agree that MSU is going to be tough as long as Izzo is there, but I'm not so sure we have to resign ourselves to forever being worse than them. Even during the Amaker years, we were able to convince some top-notch local recruits to come here (Dion Harris, Manny Harris, DeShawn Sims), and that was with our program underperforming on the court and having terrible facilities to boot. We are starting to turn it around on the court and our new practice facility should be up and running in two years. While it's true that this state has never really had the two programs strong at the same time, with Izzo/Beilein, that could change.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:10 PM |
the glass if half full
the glass if half full
There are probably about five coaches in the country who will run a clean program and also put together a "powerhouse" team. Roy Williams, Izzo, Coach K...uh...
Anyway, Beilein is going to win a lot of games, has brought Michigan back to respectability in only two years, and has an excellent chance of making the tournament for the 2nd straight year next year. That is good enough. Any Sweet Sixteens or Final Fours are gravy.
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
April 16th, 2009 at 2:19 PM |
i guess what people are counting on is...
i guess what people are counting on is...
that the Beilein system will consistently produce seasons that vastly exceeded expectations. so, if 16-14 with a decent NIT run turns into 22-12, 1-1 in the Tourney, then 22-12, 1-1 in the tourney should turn into 26-6 and an elite 8 or final four. but that's just not going to happen regularly. sometimes we will under perform relative to expectations. maybe his system mitigates underperformance, but does it eliminate it? i don't think so.
w/o looking at the schedule, i'd guess we go 23-10 (10-8) with a 6 or 7 seed in the tourney and make the sweet 16, but more than that may be too much to expect. and after we lose sims AND harris, are we really expecting to match that in 2011? 2011 should have the same expectations as this year (assuming manny leaves after 2010).
and i don't know about the 1-3-1 being synergy... but i do see it as the best way to defend if you want to increase offensive effeciency. the 1-3-1 only needs 1 guy down low defending the block. yes, there's is a lot of rotation, but the point is that the 1-3-1 doesn't just create TOs, it creates TOs that lead to higher effeciency offensive possessions b/c you generally out man the other team on a steal (b/c you only have the one guy defending the baseline). getting a steal down low doesn't lead to a fast break as often as getting a steal out on the wing, which is what the 1-3-1 is designed to do, AFAIK.
Harvard: The MICHIGAN of the East
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:28 PM |
The argument of "Beliein
The argument of "Beliein
The argument of "Beliein can't have an elite team because he never has had one" doesn't hold any water.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:33 PM |
not really, as i see it
not really, as i see it
therealtruth: i think it's fair to say that an elite 8 run (tho not out of the question obvs) is not likely in 10,11 or 12 at this point. but this is NOT being pessimistic. it's being realistic. and i think brians point is that being optimistic can be accepting the fact that we'll be in the tourney, but not be a E8 or FF team.
Harvard: The MICHIGAN of the East
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:33 PM |
I was wondering why you
I was wondering why you
I was wondering why you hadn't changed the link to the WLA on the left sidebar. Now I know... kerfuffle.
or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:50 PM |
Time
Time
Brian is using the engineering part of his brain in this post. A=B=C. Becasue of circumstance I don't think we can do that. I am pretty cautious by nature but by most accounts we will be ranked somewhere in the top 25 next year. If they follow that up with a good season Beilein should be in a great spot to recruit. If the 2010 ends with a thud and 2011 doesn't snag a superstar than Brian may be right, but I think we need to wait.
As for the system, I see no reason why top notch players won't want to come to Michigan...top guards have open floor space to drive and jack 3's. Big men who always like to step out have freedom to move around and not wrestle all night down low. As for the 1-3-1...totally overrated. We only get in the 1-3-1 off a made basket so at best we use it half the game, last year we were probably 60%man 25%1-3-1 and 15% 2-3. A pretty good mix and despite our size we played excellent man d near the end of the season...how I don't know but we did.....Stu yes Stu was locking guys up.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:55 PM |
expectations
expectations
I'm so pleased with the way this year went, and so pleased with Coach, and all of the kids on the team. HOWEVA, Brian is right we have to check ourselves with the expectations here. Michigan could improve a lot next year, and still find themselves on the bubble.
>>MSU, Purdue and Illinois return everyone and are sure to be very good
>> OSU returns conference MVP (in my opinion)
>>IU will not be 100% win anymore
>> N'western returns Kobel, PSU returns Battle (although both could take a small step back)
>>We are NOT going into conference play with wins over Duke & UCLA (or equivalents) again.
That said, we might still be a much better team; but I foresee people's disappointment with "lack of improvement" for Manny & Deshawn's last run.
The goal at this point, in my opinion, is to sustain success already achieved in 2009, and in outlying seasons *possibly* compete for B10 titles/deep tournament runs.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:06 PM |
The (Artist Formerly Known As) Big Ten Wonk weighs in
The (Artist Formerly Known As) Big Ten Wonk weighs in
This is my first post, as I usually find that others have expressed any thoughts that I might have. However, I have also wondered about the ceiling of the program, and took the occasion to ask John Gasaway about it during a Basketball Prospectus Chat. My apologies if reprinting part of a chat is considered unethical. (asked on the morning of the Clemson game)
jbuofm (Peoria): As a Michigan alum, I am extremely excited about tonight's game. However, do you think John Beilein is capable of building a national championship caliber program, or are his teams destined to be scrappy over-achiever types who might make an occasional final four run, but be out classed once they get that far? Don't get me wrong, at this point I'm excited about anything positive in Michigan basketball.
John Gasaway: You can be a bright guy with a sophisticated offense and still recruit well and get to the Final Four, I dare say. Georgetown in 2007 comes to mind. I say you are right to be extremely excited.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:15 PM |
Having just read the WLA
Having just read the WLA
Having just read the WLA piece, I don't get the impression that they're arguing that we should "expect national championships" or anything of the sort. I get the impression that their main bone of contention is with Brian's "Michigan basically abdicated on being a powerhouse when they hired Beilein" comment - which essentially says it CANNOT happen.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:09 PM |
Weak
Weak
I'm not going to bother posting my fisk on the WLA, as a triple fisk with a double reverse is something only something Brian Boitano could pull off.
"You're just going to have to trust me on this: yes, it is that far out of the question."
Actually, I'm not going to. You have repeatedly said you're not a basketball guru, and you also offer really, really bad supporting evidence.
"Michigan vastly exceeded expectations this year but on a possession-to-possession basis they finished 50th in the Kenpom rankings, which was sixth in the conference."
So, in the following years, when they have a NON walk-on point guard, and maybe someone bigger than Sims, you know, the 2 MOST IMPORTANT POSITIONS ON A BASKETBALL COURT, you don't think they can continue to exceed expectations, even a little?
" They were three-point jacks away from losing to three different horrible teams and missing the tourney."
Alternatively, they were three-point jacks away from BEATING Maryland and UCONN with aforementioned walk-ons and smurfs. Also, Manny getting mugged every game in the Big10, anyone?
"One Big Ten team got a 2 or 3 seed and it was Michigan State, #8 in Kenpom."
The Big 10 had 2 top 3 seeds in 2007, one more than the ACC. Also, WVU was #9, UCLA #12, Duke #11, Purdue #18. Michigan beat 3 of those 4 teams this year. How can you make a blanket statement that a 2 or 3 seed is impossible in the next year or two?
"There is a huge gap between Michigan's team this year and the sort of seed expectation you just threw out, and more experience plus the 2009 recruiting class only gets you halfway there."
Once again, Michigan beat the 11,12, and 18 Kenpoms. Unless they are going to improve substantially more than Michigan does, which is unlikely since those teams are already loaded with talent, how can getting a true point guard, another shooter, big men, and experience for Sims/Harris NOT close the gap by more than half? I'm not expecting a 2 or 3 seed, but it sure as hell isn't that far out impossible. Essentially to get at least a #3 Michigan would have to be 13-5 in the Big10, 1 or fewer noncon losses, and a loss in the B10tourney. That would be roughly 25-7. That's a #3, maybe a #4.
As for "Comrades, now is a time for optimism."
I think you're missing the point here. By saying we've abdicated being a powerhouse, how are you being optimistic about anything? Why draw those conclusions? How can you draw those conclusions after what we saw this season? Where are my pants?
April 16th, 2009 at 4:27 PM |
OT
OT
Brian I think you need to write a post on Paulus, because I think it has everyone's panties in a knot including me
April 16th, 2009 at 5:46 PM |
Blanket statements
Blanket statements
I'm going to echo the sentiment here that the issue with your original post is the blanket statement that Beilein can't turn Michigan into a powerhouse. I think your evidence backing that assertion up is circumstantial and disjointed. And why are we only talking about this in terms of the next 2 or 3 years. Let's rehash this discussion in 5 years when there's a body of work here to draw conclusions from.
I don't know if he will bring Michigan to level of MSUs, UCONNs, Dukes, but I disagree that his system prohibits the possibility. My opinion is less based in facts and more in faith that Beilein's universal praise as a strong basketball mind is cause for optimism, which on the surface seems weak. But I don't agree that there's enough relevant "facts" to argue it the other way.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:56 PM |
MGO/WLA
MGO/WLA
My two favorite blogs frisking each other. This is like walking in on your parents having sex with whips and paddles.
I'm sure I'll adjust to this better, though.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:59 PM |
Time will Tell
Time will Tell
Honestly, none of us know how Beilein will do in recruiting. However, I will take Beilein over Matta and Calipari and Huggins 100 times out of 100. I do believe that facilities improvement will eventually help, especially in another year or so. I also believe that the Detroit and the Chicago areas, as well as the rest of Michigan, produce enough talent for BOTH UofM and MSU. What this means is that while recruiting is a crapshoot, we are only one or two classes away from having two or three five star recruits out of Detroit decide to come to UofM together. Manny and Sims can make a huge difference in this. If they tell current High School ballers to come to Michigan, and work their connections in the community, it could happen. I also think that Beilein ball is FUN. If just a few athletes decide they'd rather jack 3's in Beilein's system than go to State, we're all set.
It's great to be a Michigan Wolverine.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:19 PM |
Book still being written
Book still being written
I am going to wait until after the 2011 class is signed before attempting to draw recruiting conclusions.
This is Michigan, Belien is a great coach, the talent is local and in abundance, I say why not?
April 16th, 2009 at 7:40 PM |
So how long does it last?
So how long does it last?
So, if I agree with Brian's assessment of the situation (and I just am having trouble with that at this point, because it is based on a hell of a lot on predicting the future, it seems), then just how long does the Beilein era last? It seems like Brian ought to have made such a prediction to bring some sort of conclusion to his post. The comment about "15 years from now when someone else is the coach" doesn't really do that. If I know my fan base well enough (and I've been part of it for 23 years now), the time will come pretty quickly when regular Sweet 16s or Elite 8s will no longer be enough for us, and many will be calling for Beilien's head.... not unlike the Lloyd Carr situation.
Personally, until a few years have passed and we really CAN make some judgments about the coach, I'm going stick with what I've seen thus far: Beilein is a class act with a great basketball mind who, IMHO, made a career move to a better school not only for the challenge of bettering our program but himself, too. We have a lot to look forward to.
GO BLUE!
I automatically downvote "B1G"
April 17th, 2009 at 12:54 AM |
'shamed to admit it,
'shamed to admit it,
but I know I'll be one of the people grousing about "only" regular Sweet 16's.
I don't think enough people realize what an illustrious Basketball tradition Michigan has - a National Championship, 4 more National Championship Finals, another Final Four, a couple of Elite Eight's, a bunch of Sweet Sixteens, 3 NIT Championships, and the Inagural Big 10 Championship.
That's a better record than powerhouse "Basketball Schools" such as Georgetown, Syracuse, Arizona, Purdue, etc.
Think any of them are going settle for a ceiling of mid-conference finishes and one or two Tournament victories?
M'Dog
April 17th, 2009 at 9:50 AM |
You, me....
You, me....
....and score of others, M-Dog. While I appreciate Brian's wanting to temper expectations (read: psychological impact of 2008 football season), I prefer to hope and believe that such a mediocre time will not come, rather than sit around and convince myself that it will. Until it does happen, why not give the coach a break... he's done an amazing thing without a whole lot to work with, and in record time.
I automatically downvote "B1G"
April 17th, 2009 at 10:51 AM |
well, yeah. they are.
well, yeah. they are.
arizona - lute olson won a title in 1997, conveniently the same season as lloyd's national championship. in his final ten years as head coach, the wildcats had: 1 national finalist, 2 elite eights, and a sweet 16. i don't think that arizona fans thought they were "settling." (admittedly, the equation has changed since his weird departure / non-departure in 2007, but the point holds)
syracuse - in the last ten years, boeheim has a national title and two sweet 16s. he also has three n.i.t. berths. i don't think that syracuse fans think they're "settling."
purdue - in gene keady's TWENTY FIVE seasons at purdue, the boilermakers made three sweet 16s and two elite eights. purdue fans never thought they were "settling."
georgetown - john thompson coached the hoyas for 15 seasons after his last national championship. they made three elite 8s and a sweet 16. again - "settling?"
the point is that all of the examples you throw out are considered to be elite programs, or (in purdue's case) just below. they are usually ranked, usually challenge for conference titles, usually (but not always) make the tournament, sometimes get a top-4 seeding, and make a deeper run once every five years or so. and none of their fans ever thought that they were or are "settling."
there's no reason - NONE - to think that beilein can't get that kind of consistent performance out of michigan for the next 15 years. i'm not saying it will happen, only that beilein has not yet proven that it won't.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:52 PM |
You are making my point.
You are making my point.
No, they don't think they are settling. Neither should we.
We are in their same league and should feel free to have similar expectations, "Football School" or not. We is them, and them is us.
Like you said "they are usually ranked, usually challenge for conference titles, usually (but not always) make the tournament, sometimes get a top-4 seeding, and make a deeper run once every five years or so". That's not Mid-Major ceiling stuff.
That's where we have been as a program, and can and should be again. You give me that, and I'll "settle".
I gotta assume that's why Beilein uprooted and came here, bacause that's where he wants to be and it was not going to happen at WVU.
M'Dog
April 16th, 2009 at 11:48 PM |
Not so fast...
Not so fast...
I don't think it is etched in stone that Izzo will always have MSU ahead of UM. Izzo's best work has been while UM was down. Let's see how he does with a more level playing field before we assume that he will always have MSU ahead of UM.
I think JB is every bit as good a coach as Izzo. I know the styles are different, and there may be a perception that I am comparing apples to oranges, but I haven't seen Izzo do as much with as little as JB did this year.
The next two or three years will be crucial if Izzo stays. Once JB starts getting players who normally would have gone to MSU, we will see how "great" of a coach Izzo really is. And I do think that any shooter would have to prefer JB's system over Izzo's, so we may see the tide start to turn rather quickly.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:00 AM |
Recruiting
Recruiting
I wonder why some people are so quick to question/dismiss Beilein's ability to recruit at UM. Morgantown has to be one of the tougher places to recruit kids to probably. Look at RR. I think his highest rated class at WVU was in the upper 20's, with most of them in the 40's and 50's. Now all of a sudden he has two top 10 classes at UM.
I'm not saying Beilein is going to be consistently pulling top 10 classes, but I don't think we can assume he won't be getting classes that are Top 20-30.
You gotta remember that UM basketball has done nothing good of significance on the national scene since the Fab Five. The kids Beilein is recruiting were barely walking in the early 90's. UM basketball has been off the national radar for so long, he's got to get the program visible again to the top recruits. RR didn't have that issue.
I think people underestimate how hard it is to get to Final fours. Lute Olsen only took arizona to three final fours. Calhoun's only taken UConn to 3 final fours. Both those coaches are very highly regarded and have/had around 20 years or more at those respective schools. If you look at this decade (2000-2009) there's only a handful of schools that have more then one FF appearance (MSU, UNC - 4; Florida, Kansas, UCLA - 3; Duke, Maryland, UConn - 2).
April 17th, 2009 at 8:29 AM |
ungh
ungh
Brian, are you really quoting John Hollinger to support an argument? You are so, so much better than that.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:59 AM |
Beilein recruiting
Beilein recruiting
I believe Beilein will enjoy significantly better success recruiting at Michigan than he has ever had before for the following reasons;
1. It's Michigan. I know you don't get a helmet, but it's still cool to be a Wolverine, and they'll take your calls.
2. New practice facility. We're taking basketball seriously again. Which is as it should be. Our facilities for basketball have been a disgrace for years.
3. Beilein has a system which is identifiable, explainable, and will be attractive to a kid who fits. You couldn't look at an Amaker or Ellerbe team and discern any philosophy, style of play, or even clue, to be unkind about it. To be just downright mean about it, you couldn't look at an Amaker or Ellerbe team.
Fischer's teams played pretty consistent D, doubled down and made you shoot threes.
Orr and early Frieder ran attacking defenses, and that cutter thing where your guards ended up underneath defending and rebounding against our tough guys who were more accustomed to being there. While your bigs chased our bigs around the perimeter. The 74-76 teams with Campy Russsell, C.J. Kupec, Wayman Britt (Wayman and Grote being my personal all time favorite Wolverines) Steve Grote, and Joe Johnston being the best example.
Long kids with good shots will gravitate our way.
4. Long kids with good shots have NBA careers. This means more, better long kids with good shots heading our way
April 17th, 2009 at 10:42 AM |
I heard y'all got some snow. Sux being you.
I heard y'all got some snow. Sux being you.
I don’t get this argument. I wonder if it’s not the fatalists versus the optimists. I also wonder if I was surrounded by Spartans and Michigan idiots I would understand. I am not, so this relentless pessimism, in the face of so much to success, strikes me as responding to your child’s excellent report card by mentioning he shouldn’t expect to win the Nobel Prize.
First, off despite all the haughty words from both sides, I don’t think mgoblog’s argument is that far from the WLA’s. The WLA says a 2-3 seed isn’t so far away. Let’s say they COULD get one in the next 3 years. Mgoblog says not so fast it’ll take time. Both camps foresee a return to respectability. Otherwise, we’re just haggling over a few points in seeding.
Making the Final Four is a chancy thing. Duke hasn’t even made one recently. So, arguing that any given non-established team won’t make it is a good bet. That is why you’ll get good odds on this type of bet in Vegas. It’s the same for betting any unproven coach isn’t about to become John Wooden. What would that coach even look like? So, once you’ve stated that there is still work to be done and nothing is guaranteed or easy you’re done. Those things are self evident to me so they do not require supporting data.
Make your argument against Beilein but hopefully you can acknowledge that these are largely generic arguments that can be levied at any unproven coach. I just don’t think there’s enough data to support specific arguments against Beilein—for instance regarding drawbacks of his system or his recruiting. The Michigan brand represents new possibilities and good coaches make adjustments to meet rising challenges.
Some of the specific arguments in this piece strike as weak.
Using this single season as representative of the Big Ten’s seeding potential undercuts your argument because this was the Big Ten’s lowest point in terms of seeding. Yet, they still put a team in the championship. Looking at seeding over a broader period would not support your conclusion.
Clearly, Beilein will need to time to develop a program. Yet, you knock his WVU teams down as “middle of the conference” teams. In the Big East after only 5 seasons. West Virginia. If after 5 seasons Beilein was owning the Big East at WVU he would be the next John Wooden. The climb at Michigan will not be so high or against the best conference in the nation.
I think there is every reason to be optimistic because things are getting better. How can anyone argue they aren’t? But I would be perfectly happy with Sweet 16 runs and consistent tourney bids. So, I’m back to not understanding how exactly I disagree with this post or understanding this argument.
Give it to Wheatley!
April 17th, 2009 at 11:38 AM |
Quirky Beilein?
Quirky Beilein?
I don't understand all the talk about Beilein having a "quirky" system that only works for certain kinds of players -- and not for elite talent. Does anybody watch the games? What's quirky about what Michigan does?
When Beilein first came here, there was a lot of discussion about how he ran "the Princeton offense." I'm sure most people don't know what that means; I'm not sure I do. Beilein's West Virginia teams did run a lot of sets that used a double high post and lots of backdoor cuts. I suppose that's pretty Princeton-like -- or, at least, Pete Carril-like. Has Michigan run anything like that since he's been here? I haven't seen it. His offense against a man-to-man has been a motion offense, which, as far as I can tell, involves a lot of complicated rules about where to cut and where to set screens. But it does not rely on putting bigs in the high post and having wings cut to the basket underneath. There's nothing quirky or unusual about Beilein's motion offense, except perhaps that it's complicated. In any event, it's perfectly adaptable to any kind of talent. In fact, since Beilein does not rely on a lot of low post scoring and likes to get everyone the ball when they're facing the basket, his motion offense might appeal to a lot of kids. No-one except Greg Oden wants to stand on the block and do a drop step. Even 6-10 kids want to catch it on the wing and "do what you do."
On defense, everyone likes to talk about how he relies on a 1-3-1. I've seen the 1-3-1 sometimes, more in 2008-09 than in 2007-08; but Michigan runs it about 10% of the time, mostly as a change of pace. Actually, Michigan's most effective zone this year was a good old fashioned 2-3. Sometimes Beilein set rotations in the 2-3 to make it look a little like a 1-3-1, especially at the beginning of a possession, when the opposing point crossed half court. But it was still a 2-3. Anyway, Michigan almost always plays man off a missed shot; so they will never play zone more than half the time, and usually less than that. Jim Boeheim seems to have recruited a lot of McDonald's All-Americans, and he runs nothing but a 2-3, with several variations.
Beilein coaches what he's got and adapts his "system" to his talent. If there's anything especially unusual about him, it's the emphasis on some very basic basketball fundamentals, especially ball handling and shooting. It sounds like he spends a lot more time on that stuff than other D-1 coaches do, or at least, D-1 coaches at "elite" programs. If Willie Five-Star doesn't want to play for Beilein, it's probably going to be because: (1) he doesn't understand the rules for the motion offense (I think this was Grady's problem -- he always looked lost and often just stood still); (2) he doesn't want someone to coach him on ballhandling and shooting because he thinks he already knows that stuff -- in other words, Beilein's "too basic" for him.
There are lots of four and five-star kids who would not have these kinds of problems, and I bet that, after a few years, Beilein can recruit them. Beilein's ceiling is a lot higher than many give him credit for.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:05 PM |
synergy
synergy
synergy is a great word... just cause douches use it a lot... not the word's fault... poor word....
April 20th, 2009 at 12:00 AM |
FM09 graphic? Wow.
FM09 graphic? Wow.
FM09 graphic? Wow. I didn't think anyone on a football/basketball/hockey/sometimes assorted other sports board would acknowledge the existence of soccer.
Brian, I pretty much agree with everything you say, although I'm not sure, somewhere down the line Beilein can't have a team that could be "expected" to make a final four (meaning a three seed or higher, not the run that West Virginia made to the elite eight). I think with better players having success in the system, it may be easier to recruit even better, more highly regarded players.
On a second note, BronxBlue's assertion that George Mason's run was fluky is rather astounding. They beat MSU, UNC, Whichita St. and UConn on the way to the final four, a 6, 3, 7, and 1 seed respectively. I'm not sure what is "fluky" about that.