Basketball Q: Why do we look like we can't inbound the ball (at times)
It seems to be a game by game issue that we misexecute an inbounds play when the other team presses ... I know that it is due to being young, being pressured, and making mistakes but shouldn't Beilein and Co. have a few set in bounds plays to get the ball securely in the right person's hands. It seems like we scramble until the ball can get into anyone's hands. And, its cost us timeouts and possessions.
Is it a lack of execution or a problem of good defense for the other team?
Yeah it does seem like Beilein stuggles to draw up effective inbounds plays, but WTF do I know.
I don't think mystical basketball secrets need to be unlocked to spot a team that has too much trouble inbounding against pressure.
Why we haven't tried the overhead launch that helped Mercer beat Duke is a very legit question.
If you watch the tournament, LOTS of teams fall apart when pressed. Like Stanford completely and totally fell apart and almost blew their game this afternoon.
It would be more of a problem for us if we didn't have too many timeouts.
^^This. Can't remember which game it was now, but some team was pressured at the end of the game and kept having a guy run into the corner, and then the inbounder would throw it to him and of course he was trapped by 2 guys. It happened twice and they had to call a timeout both times. Maybe it was Mercer vs. Duke actually. I assume it's harder than it looks. That's why some teams press all the time.
I think you're right - this happened a few times towards the end of the Mercer / Duke game, but it also happened a generous amount in the last five minutes of the Stanford / Kansas game. Stanford would be set to inbound and whoever was lucky enough to be open was the recipient of what probably seemed like septuple-teaming until they were operating with about one square inch of the floor. It rattled Stanford for a bit and then they were getting some effective passes once they figured it out.
Obviously you're right about Stanford but there was a reasonable explanation as to why it kept happenenig to them, that being that they didn't have a true point guard on the floorand were relying on someone else to be the primary ball handler.
I also agree with other posters that some other teams have shown an inability to do much when pressed like that. The thing is though, many teams can at least get the ball inbounds before things fall apart, we can't even do that. It has been a consistent weakness of this team for the past two seasons and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Once our guys get the ball inbounds we have an advantage of having so many capable ball handlers so breaking the press from that point has been a strength, but getting the ball in has been tough to watch and I have been holding out hope for two years that we could at least get competent at that. As I say, lots of other teams have no problem getting it in, it's what they do after that's the problem but for us it's the opposite.
Consistent weakness of the last 2 seasons? Did you watch the VCU game last year?
March 24th, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^
The VCU press is a trapping press and designed to create turnovers through bad passes and traps once the ball in inbounded. They rarely would try to deny the inbounds pass, which is the problem the OP was addressing. Think more along the lines of our struggles against Ohio St, or whenever we take the ball out under our own basket, as those are times teams are actually trying to deny us the ball.
March 24th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
"The thing is though, many teams can at least get the ball inbounds before things fall apart, we can't even do that."
That's not necessarily better. If you're put in a position like I saw where you get the ball in but you're gonna have to call a timeout anyway, it's even worse because you have the same outcome or you turn the ball over.
If Kansas had been able to get anything to fall, Stanford would've lost by double digits. At one point in the last minutes, the stat was that they turned the ball over on 5 of their last 9 possessions.
March 24th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
Stanford's point guard had career-ending shoulder surgery in December. They're going to struggle with pressure.
It's been a problem for a while, but fortuanately we have a 6'6 reciever like GR3.
I've had the same observation. There isn't just one explanation.
Lavert seems uncomfortable inbounding and has made some poor decisions and passes (as of late). Opponents like to put a big guy on the ball when Spike inbounds, which makes it difficult for the little guy. Spike usually has a pretty reliable internal clock, but it seems Michigan relies on a timeout more often when he is inbounding. Michigan also doesn't have much threat around the rim, so defenses can get away with spreading out to gaurd the perimeter.
I can't imagine that Beilein,being an offensive genius, can't draw up a few easy inbound plays, so some credit goes to the defense.
From time to time, yes. On every single baseline inbound play, no. Seriously, I haven't seen one inbounds play where our team has been pressured that they seemed like they knew what they were doing. Other teams sometimes get caught off guard and have a difficult time and then adjust. Teams have been doing this to us all year and we haven't adjusted yet. It's tough to watch.
when inbounding from the front court.
More than once, Caris has found no one open when inbounding from the front court, and has attempted to throw a lob near half-court to a stand-still "relief valve". And more than once, the defense has intercepted it.
Not just the inbounder Caris, but also the players on the floor need to recognize that they can use the backcourt.
when selecting your inbounder a team often times puts one of their better passers who has a track recourd for making good decisions with the ball. Point guards fit that bill to a tee, while your bigger players often don't have the same skill set. It is rare that you find a big man who displays a real talent for distibuting the ball.
Often the best option for the second pass is back to the inbounder so you want that to be a good ball handler. Not always but i think that's part of the thinking, plus that Spike's a good passer.
March 24th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
Because Spike makes good decisions. He rarely makes a pass that leads to a turnover. At worst, he sometimes has to call timeout. Caris is a little more mistake-prone.
When Spike's on the floor, he inbounds it. When he's not, it's Caris.
but I don't know why he doesn't try that rather than calling timeout all the time. Not necessarily at his face, but off his legs to save a timeout.
I hope someone whips the ball at Calipari the first time he wanders onto the court during play. Head, midsection, groin, any would suffice.
Another question: why don't we go after inbounds when the opponent is trying?
DWJ got up and did that a few games ago. I can't remember which one but it almost worked.
but this team values not fouling the opposition and when you press you foul frequently. You also expend a lot more energy when you're defending the whole court rather than half of it. The vast majority of teams don't press except for certain instances in the game. Teams like VCU and Louisville are the exception and not the norm.
What we see though, is teams utilizing it far more than they usually do when they play us because we have shown an inability to cope with it.
the one positive to not having a strong offensive rebounding presence in low is that your team can get back on D faster. It's why you see very few teams have fast breaks against Michigan.
I thought we did well against Texas. Someone posted recently showing that Beilein was one of the best current coaches at getting points off of in-bounds plays, so he can handle this, too.
March 24th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
And that forced them to burn one TO. Texas was running a diamond trap, which basically has the goal of letting the opponent inbound into a corner and taking the guy on the inbounder and trapping the guy with the ball in the corner. The guy in the other corner picks up the inbounder and the guy at half court-ish tries to pick off any pass going forward (was on teams that ran this trap in middle/high school).
Michigan was doing the right thing in inbounding to Nik in the far corner (rather than the near corner to the shorter player), because Nik is taller (and can see over the defense) while not being pressed up against the OOB line. This is already better than several teams I watched during the tournament. There seemed to be a problem with GRIII flashing or proper motion from the inbounder to really advance the ball as well as it could have. Diagonal passes beat traps, but are also usually longer passes that can be picked off. I think taking LeVert away to the far sideline would give a better cross court passing window due to his height as opposed to one of Michigan's PGs, but the guy away from the initial trap tends to be the guy that breaks to trap as well, so it makes sense to want that to be your PG.
I think more preperation for it if teams will run it is what you're looking for. But a team like Texas probably wasn't really worth repping for it much with only one day between games (the Texas offense, as well as Texas man defense, 2-3 defense, and 1-3-1 defense were all worth more reps). They did good enough to not warrent much more practice time. Thought Nik did a good job not turning his back to the trap or moving further into the corner, he was patient and waited for the defense to shift before making the pass. I do think Michigan tends to really slow in and out of cuts compared to some other teams and that allows defenses to stay with them on man-presses and other inbound plays though, and has been a source of worry.
Simple explanation:
It is hard because the other team has really good athletes and is trying hard too.
From VCU back to Nolan Richardson's "40 Mintues of Hell" days and long before, many teams have tried differing levels of pressure because it is a way to easily beat a poorly prepared team.
In response to a couple of comments in this thread:
- Regarding having a few inbounds plays drawn up, I'm sure JB does. But he doesn't want to use them on every inbound because the other team will figure them out. I'm sure for a desperation situation where you have the ball on the sideline, he has one or two on paper at all times. Like, say, the end of the Purdue game.
- Regarding the inbounder, I think JB's philosophy is to have a good passer inbound the ball. As has been pointed out, this also helps becuase often the play is to immediately pass back, and you want a ball handler.
- At times (in other games) you see guys get passive, trying to draw the foul -- this is often a losing strategy. If you watch our team, yes, sometimes the first pass is difficult (see above about good athletes from the other team trying hard too) but once the ball is inbounded, the players space the floor well and pass effectively.
- Regarding transition points, I think against Texas they weren't trying to push super hard because they wanted to take time and get into the offense. At 1.39 points per possession, this worked out. Brilliantly.
- I felt like the Texas game was a bit of an anomaly. As it started to get down to crunch time, it seemed like Michigan was whistled for a foul on *every* Texas possession; conversely, the team that was pressing for almost the entire second half had very few fouls called on them. Hopefully this is the type of thing that evens out over time.
I remember watching one of Trey Burke's earliest games. Whoever we were playing started off trying to press and trap. The press was broken and the commentator casually said, "And Michigan easily breaks the press." After enduring Ellerbe and Amaker madness and lack of preparation/fundamentals this was an absolute ray of sunshine. And it was with a newly minted point guard having to fill the shoes of a guy that left early for the NBA. Our team is very well practiced and skilled in so many fundamental aspects of the game. It has been a joy to see the progression.
complaining about it all year. Now I watch for it and what I notice most is: (1) We often don't set a screen to get a receiver open and (2) We don't make hard, fast cuts to get open. Once we get the ball inbounded, we are usually fine, but we waste a lot of timeouts. I also have wondered why we don't have Nik be the inbounder when teams are pressing. He is a good passer and it would give us another athletic receiver in LeVert.
March 24th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
March 24th, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^
Thank you for noticing this as well. I've certainly been aware of this ever since Beilein was the coach. The man is an incredible, amazing coach, but he has 3 noticeable deficiencies (at least in my uneducated eyes):
- Offensive rebounding - He doesn't seem to value it, or at least doesn't seem to preach it. As soon as a shot is taken, there is no boxing out or following the shot by our players, they all for the most part just take off to the defensive side of the court, almost as if it's an expected made basket. At first I thought it was just the mindset of our particular players, but after 7 years, it clearly is how they are coached. If there was more of a focus on controlling the offensive glass, this team would be that much better.
- Moving without the ball - There is a lot of standing still in this offense. I at first thought it was laziness by players, but again, after 7 years of the same old same old, it's clear there's a lot of just designed waiting around on the wings, and passing around the perimeter in this offense. I'd much prefer that my 5 not be the man who moves around without the ball the most, but hey, what do I know.
- Inbounds plays/ final play of the game after timeouts - I'm sorry, as much as love Beilein, he is one of the worst coaches in the country in this category. I've had better inbounds plays called in middle school basketball games. His inbounding plays (as well as what is done with the ball once it is inbounded when there is little time left) lacks any imagination or sense of urgency. I think it all comes back to my point #2. No one is moving. Everything is centered around finding your spot on the court and planting there, which is the best case scenario for a defense guarding the inbounds pass. No player ever attempts to improvise if their move to their specified spot is compromised. More imagination in the play he draws up as well as teaching and allowing his players to improvise in a inbounds play would go a long way for this team.
But then again, the man is a great coach and has brought Michigan back to where it should be, so I have no problem if just continues to keep coaching them like he is.
March 24th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^
My rebuttal for some of your criticisms
- Who on any of Michigan's teams would you want to crash the boards outside of Mitch (who did) and GRIII more. Michigan doesn't have the front line athletes to be a good offensive rebounding team. Morgan and Horford are both more below the rim guys than great athletes that are good at getting ORs. GRIII shows spurts, but also has responsibilities in transition and his offensive positioning doesn't often put him in great places to gain an early advantage on the glass. You are also acting like there are no consequences for hitting the offensive glass, which there is: transition defense. With the personnel and offense Michigan runs, offensive rebounds won't be a high priority as it will be for a 2-man front court team with great athletes.
- You are looking very high-level at what "off-ball movement" is. Michigan is great at moving to the proper spots around the three-point line. All movement doesn't have to be cuts, off-ball screens, etc. Movement can be very effective by sliding down to the wing or to the corner or where ever the opening is, not to mention down the baseline which GRIII is very good at. Michigan moves how they need to move within their offense. Michigan also does a lot of early offense movement to force the defense to rotate and move, only to get back to their high ball-screen offense, but the movement is early and designed to get the defense working to get back to their staple play and put offensive players in correct spots and spacing. I will agree that Michigan sometimes struggles on O when they get dribble happy.
- I think this is very over-stated. I feel like almost all team's fans say this. It's like the basketball version of "we played too conservative". The key is typicaly to get the ball in and get into your offense, as that's going to be the most affective play. Sometimes Coach B will run something that looks like Michigan's standard set and get something easy off of it, but it's all about what the defense is showing and how they are reacting to the standard set. If the defense isn't overplaying the standard set in some way, you can't go to the quick hitter. Coach B was very good for a while at generating points from baseline inbounds for some time. Also, the lack of "imagination" is very overrated. The best play for Michigan, the play they practice the most, is a high ball screen. There is little reason to over-think it. People always want something new when that thing doesn't work, but that doesn't make it the best option. Sometimes the best option is not giving the players something completely new at the end of the game to try to execute, but rather make a slight tweek to what the do best.
By no means are these Michigan teams perfect, they have their weaknesses. But I think you are overstating some of those weaknesses, especially on offense. If there's any weakness on this team right now it's more likely that they allow dribble penetration much to easily into the middle of the floor, they aren't physical enough on the outside (this is weighing fouling to playing good defense), and their wing rotation struggles when the posts front sometimes leading to easy backside buckets.
On offense, I would say settling for some shots or over-dribbling are bigger concerns than the things you listed as well.
March 24th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
I like your counter-arguments, they are absolutely valid and make perfect sense (also, while I most certainly don't agree with everything here, I didn't downvote you over it). But I still have my concerns regardless, which unfortunately is based on the only style of offense I truly understand ( when I played, my team primarily ran the Northwestern style offense, which is a variation of the Princeton like Beilein's, and while there was a lot of passing and moving the ball mainly around the perimeter, it was very cut oriented with a lot more off the ball moving towards the baseline). Apples to oranges, but it's all I have in the ol' knowledge bank.
I know that's a huge flaw that as a guy who only played basketball until I was 18 trying to criticize one of the best coaches in the college game, but it does frustrate me. Also, we may not have dominant guys who can consistantly control the offensive glass, but that doesn't mean we can't try. We honestly don't attempt to get as many 2nd chance oppurtunities like many other teams (even those with a faux 4 like us). Bottom line, my opinions are some over critical, broad and fairly uneducated ones, but they are my frustrations with Beilein ball nonetheless.
I will say, some people a lot smarter than me when comes to basketball (and not necessarily U of M homers either), have openly said something about how lacking Beilein's inbounds plays are. They are truly awful.
We honestly don't attempt to get as many 2nd chance oppurtunities like many other teams (even those with a faux 4 like us).This is true. But there is a reason: we don't want to get beaten in transition. There is a tradeoff when you send a lot of guys to the glass. If you don't get that board, you can be screwed at the other end.
if you watched any games this weekend you would have seen a lot of teams with trouble inbounding this week...
I mean its basically a 5-4 and most teams send one guy way down deep settleing for a 4-3...
jdon
When the organic waste contacts the rotary blade, there are usually a lot of brown spots. Every team has trouble inbouding on occasion. It's part of the ebb and flow of basketball.
Every time Michigan has trouble inbounding, Beilein has another teaching moment for his team. This team is progressing nicely; maybe one of the times they had trouble inbounding will end up winning a game for them later in the tournament due to them having already seen whatever press or play the other team uses on them.
The Wolverines have two wins and a beatable Tennessee coming up next. If they beat UT, they will play a UK or Louisville that has just played a rivalry game. If it turns out to be Louisville, the "intangibles" will be in Michigan's favor.
This team now has a very good chance at making the Final Four.