Michigan 77, Iowa 71 (OT) Comment Count

Ace


Moe Wagner "played" M's most critical minutes from the bench. [Marc-Gregor Campredon]

"I have no idea how we won the game," John Beilein said to BTN's Mike Hall.

Michigan didn't make a shot outside the paint until under ten minutes remained in the game. Their two best players, Moe Wagner and Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman, fouled out after playing 16 and 22 minutes, respectively. The Wolverines went 18-for-32 from the free-throw line. Players not named Duncan Robinson made zero of their ten three-point attempts while Iowa made four more shots from beyond the arc. Zavier Simpson took a late five-second call with the team clinging to a three-point lead. Jordan Bohannon sunk a dagger to send it to overtime not long thereafter.

With all that going against them, Michigan somehow found a way to pull out a 77-71 win over the pesky Hawkeyes to advance to the Big Ten Tournament quarterfinals. It was about as un-Beilein a game that the Wolverines have won in recent memory. The vast majority of their offense came from attacking the basket, going 25-for-43 (58.1%) on two-pointers. Michigan's resulting shot chart is unlike any I remember from the Beilein era (via ESPN):


Layups and, uh, more layups.

Meanwhile, the defense bounced back from an uncharacteristically bad first half to shut down Iowa's offense for the duration, highlighted by an overtime session in which the Hawkeyes didn't hit a field goal after their opening possession. That allowed Michigan to ultimately pull away despite an unnerving number of missed free throws in the deciding period.

Part of what made this game so frustrating is that Wagner and MAAR were both excellent when they were on the floor. MAAR stuffed the stat sheet with nine points on nine shot equivalents, five rebounds, three assists, and two steals; Wagner had 11 points, made four of his six two-pointers, and had a gorgeous no-look assist to Charles Matthews. An enragingly tight whistle—the two teams combined for 46 fouls—prevented either player, and Michigan, from getting into a consistent rhythm, however. 


Matthews and Teske both came up big down the stretch. [Campredon]

Coming at just the right time, it was a get-right game for Charles Matthews. He led the team with 16 points, going 5-for-10 from the field and 6-for-10 from the line, and pulled down eight rebounds.

The supporting cast also picked up the slack. Robinson made three critical three-pointers, pulled down five boards, and came up with two steals while playing sturdy post defense. His counterpart at the four, Isaiah Livers, converted a few tough shots around the hoop to tally his most points (nine) since early January. Simpson converted five-of-nine two-pointers, frequently beating Bohannon off the dribble, grabbed a Waltonesque five defensive rebounds, and played his usual suffocating defense—Bohannon finished only 3-for-14 from the field. Jordan Poole had an up-and-down afternoon but did get a crucial steal and dunk in the second half. Like almost all of his teammates, he could finish at the hoop but didn't have his outside shot going.

Jon Teske's contributions were quite difficult to overlook. Iowa had a hard time converting at the rim with him patrolling the paint for 28 minutes; his two blocks and steal undersell his impact on defense. He did a lot more than come up with stops at the basket, including snatching a couple huge rebounds late and tapping another to Robinson while simultaneously sealing off Tyler Cook to effectively seal the game in overtime. While Teske struggled to actually put them back, he also grabbed a team-high four offensive rebounds. With Wagner unable to avoid whistles, Teske came up huge.

Michigan will hopefully get a few more threes to fall tomorrow afternoon in a tougher test against four-seed Nebraska. Even if they don't, though, they've found ways to win games anyway—plus, their two stars are impressively well-rested going into their second game in two days.

[Hit THE JUMP for the box score.]


THIS FRIGGIN' GUY [Campredon]

Comments

Goblueman

March 1st, 2018 at 6:24 PM ^

Playing smarter and contributing on offense which means Poole can play more at the 2 spot...Z without MAAR in there is troublesome...Guards-Z,MAAR,Poole...Wings-Matthews-Livers-Duncan...The bad call block-charge foul on Mo prevented Mich from blowing them out the door.(Key bad call of the game) had many to choose from...End of regulation was a nightmare:Bad possesion up 6 (late clock Z 3) ,5 second call and MAAR miss FT up 3 with 10 secs.left.Classic ugly win but we'll take it.

stephenrjking

March 1st, 2018 at 6:22 PM ^

What an ugly game. Ugly in a significant part because of the refs; also ugly because Michigan couldn't shoot from outside. 

This team has flaws, but one thing they share with last year's team: An ability to win games in different ways when preferred methods aren't working. They won this one with duct tape and paperclips. 

Maybe there's another win or two available yet.

J.

March 1st, 2018 at 6:26 PM ^

The first half notwithstanding, this game was won on defense.  Michigan held Iowa's potent offense to under 1 ppp -- the 13-2 run to start the second half would have been decisive but for the last two minutes of regulation -- and is now #9 in the country in adjusted defensive efficency in KenPom.

Let that sink in for a moment. :)

TrueBlue2003

March 1st, 2018 at 6:43 PM ^

in just 2:30 min was huge.  Went from a 58% chance of winning to 90% and you're correct that it didn't dip much below that until the disastrous final minute of regulation.

Iowa scored 11 points in the first 12.5 min of the second half.  That was impressive.

ST3

March 1st, 2018 at 6:25 PM ^

I mean, you DID just post a front-page story about how the team is fouling more this season as part of their new aggressive approach on defense. I am just glad you didn't wait until right before the NCAA tournament to post that. /s Survived and advanced. Go Blue.

The Man Down T…

March 1st, 2018 at 6:26 PM ^

un-Michigan Michigan win.  We'll take it.  We won because the defense stayed strong and the players we usually don't depend on stepped up.  Winning like this can only help those players.

Goblueman

March 1st, 2018 at 6:27 PM ^

who believes Dick Head Delaney ordered the BTN to mention every 5 minutes how great it is that Tourney is being played in MSG? Drinking game challenge if you dare.

J.

March 1st, 2018 at 6:36 PM ^

I felt like I was watching a travelogue for New York that happened to include a basketball game.

I've been to MSG.  It's fine.  It has history, sure, but I think that means a lot more to most of the players than it does to the fans.  I'm quite certain it's not the "world's most famous arena," no matter how many times they say it.  It's the most famous arena in the tri-state area, which is about as far as most New Yorkers think the world extends anyway.

I especially enjoyed the promo that was basically "New York is great because we're rude.  Come visit and see for yourself!"

This whole tournament -- hell, the whole expansion push -- feels to me like Jim Delany's inadequacies writ large.  Damn it, the Big Ten shouldn't have to go chase after New York to be relevant.  It shouldn't play second fiddle to the Big East and take the not-at-all-coveted "same time as the Patriot League" tournament slot.  It's like he's so desperate to make the "big time" that he's willing to turn his back on what made the Big Ten important in the first place.

Hint: It was neither Rutgers, its "brand," the media markets, nor New York City, which is a pro sports town if ever there were one.

In reply to by J.

jmblue

March 1st, 2018 at 6:49 PM ^

I guess it's possible that it could be the world's most famous arena.  Basketball arenas aren't really that famous in general, so the bar isn't super-high.  There aren't really any arena equivalents of Yankee Stadium, Wembley, Maracana, et al. - as far as I know.  The most legendary ones (Boston Garden, Montreal Forum, Chicago Stadium) were all torn down.

 

 

J.

March 1st, 2018 at 6:50 PM ^

Yeah, I suppose that's true; if you define it narrowly enough, I guess it could pass.  For people of a certain age, the Forum is always going to be more famous than MSG, though, and Staples Center might actually be more famous today than MSG worldwide, just among NBA arenas.

But, yes, I was thinking soccer stadia in particular, or even something like the Colosseum. :)

J.

March 1st, 2018 at 7:05 PM ^

I agree that Staples doesn't have the history -- no question.  (LA, like Vegas, makes a business of not having history :).  And if MSG claimed to be the world's most historic arena, I might buy it.  But you can be famous without being historic (see: the Ball family).

Anyway, I think we've now collectively put more thought into this than the MSG marketing guys did when they came up with the slogan. :)

In reply to by J.

stephenrjking

March 1st, 2018 at 6:49 PM ^

I'm quite certain it's not the "world's most famous arena," no matter how many times they say it.

Not trolling here, what is? Arenas as we currently understand them (excluding stadiums large enough to hold football, soccer, etc; not counting the Colosseum) just aren't that famous. MSG doesn't give chills the way, say, Fenway Park might, but I don't think any arena does that.

It's a category issue, not an issue with the arena. MSG has hosted a remarkable variety of significant events across many sports. Is there any arena in Europe that can claim such noteriety? Asia? Anywhere?

The problem is that there are large stadiums which are much more significant worldwide, but they aren't "arenas" in the same sense. This is partly due to the fact that arena sports (basketball, hockey, etc) aren't as popular overseas. Soccer is the major sport elsewhere, with other prominent sports such as rugby also requiring large stadiums.

The "most famous stadium" or "most famous sports facility" argument is much more congested, and depending upon how you define Yankee Stadium MSG might not even win that contest in its own city. 

I don't object to most of your other reasoning here, but I find stuff like this interesting. Can you think of an arena that I missed?

J.

March 1st, 2018 at 7:01 PM ^

Yeah, I think you're right.  It's more of a category issue, and it has a lot to do with the fact that the NBA is more popular worldwide than college basketball.  I'd put Rupp, Assembly Hall, Cameron Indoor, and Hinkle all above MSG for college basketball fans.  But if you ask people to name an arena, MSG might win the name recognition contest for the general public.

I was mostly thinking "if I ask 100 random people in China if they know where Madison Squared Garden is -- or even what it is -- how many will know the answer."  I guess I didn't set the bar low enough. ;)

Carry on, MSG: You're the world's most famous arena*, just like every Ford truck is the most powerful in its class**.

* arena: place hosting an indoor sport such as basketball, hockey, boxing, etc.  Must be larger than a concert hall or theatre.
** as defined by Ford

:-)

Edit: come to think of it, it's entirely possible that there's an arena in Beijing that's more famous in the world, but not more famous with Americans.  If it's well known in China, well, they've got a pretty big population edge. :)

stephenrjking

March 1st, 2018 at 7:30 PM ^

Keep in mind that MSG (and its predecessors) host a lot more than basketball and hockey. Boxing in particular used to be a major worldwide phenomenon, and MSG was a very significant venue for it (Ali-Frazier I for example) before boxing became small time and moved to Vegas.

But yes, it is a category issue. Smaller arenas don't have the same charm or cachet as larger stadia worldwide, and there is less variety. The Rose Bowl, to give one example, is extremely different from a place like Melbourne Cricket Ground. Yet they are both historic and famous.

Honestly, it's hard to narrow down a category of famous stadiums. There are so many with so much significance. But there are many that are more famous than the world's most famous arena. 

But I'm procrastinating right now, so let's throw some names out there. We will use a generous definition of stadium, allowing certain facilities to be replaced by new facilities with the same name and retain their history and reputation. A partial list, then, of world famous facilities MSG looks up to:

USA:
Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Rose Bowl, JerryWorld, LA Coliseum, Michigan Stadium (homer but also, capacity!)

Rest of the World:
Estadio Azteca, Maracana, Santiago Bernebeu, Camp Nou, Old Trafford, Wembley Stadium, Stade de France, Stadio Olympico, San Siro, Olympiastadion Berlin, Olympiastadion Munich, Melbourne Cricket Ground, Luzhniki Stadium, Beijing National Stadium, International Stadium Yokohama.

These are just the slam dunks, except for maybe Michigan Stadium. One can easily argue for many more. 

J.

March 1st, 2018 at 7:50 PM ^

Now you're talking. :) Expanding the criteria a little further, nationally, I'd thow in the Hollywood Bowl, Carnegie Hall, and possiby (but not defintiely) Grauman's Chinese.  Also, Indianapolis Motor Speedway and maybe Daytona as well.  Internationally, I'd add Tokyo Dome, and if I'm adding in Carnegie Hall, I have to add in the Bolshoi as well, and probably 30 places in Europe that I don't know as well.

I'm not a big soccer fan, so I'll have to take your word on most of those.  (I recognize probably half).  In England, I'd have to add Wimbledon, as well as Lord's Cricket Ground...

So, yes, definitely not the world's most famous sports-related building, and it's not even close. :)

In reply to by J.

stephenrjking

March 1st, 2018 at 7:58 PM ^

Wimbledon Centre Court is a great one. Not sure about Lord's Cricket Ground, as it is only really used for cricket (Melbourne's also hosts a lot of other stuff). I deliberately avoided race tracks, but IMS would be a shoe-in for a variety of reasons, and a number of other tracks as well.

J.

March 1st, 2018 at 8:05 PM ^

Cricket is the world's second-most-popular game, and I imagine its name recognition among cricket fans has to be at least 50%.  (It also has some name recognition among Douglas Adams fans, as it was name-dropped in the Hitchhiker's Guide series, but that's probably not a huge contribution, relatively speaking. :)  There's probably a cricket ground or two in India that would make the list too, based on the same reasoning.

Yeah, racetracks and arenas are clearly in different classes.  I stopped there, and short of golf courses, but I could see it either way. :)  There might be 10 golf courses alone that are more famous than MSG.

Churchill Downs also comes to mind, although I don't think that's a slam dunk the way the others are.

Guy Fawkes

March 1st, 2018 at 6:36 PM ^

The refereeing was probably the worst it's been all year and these are tourney games. They need to be better since these games are literally win or go home. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but whenever Michigan loses again it's going to be because they can't make effing free throws

wahooverine

March 1st, 2018 at 11:22 PM ^

The breakaway dunk travel happens a lot and it’s not often called, either because the ref isn’t really looking hard or they just give leniency in that situation. Sub 6’6 guys take a third step all the time to get up and dunk it. I don’t think it’s that big of a break.