Beilein's plan for the summer: Better iso and post play on offense
According to JB, one of the things they have to do is to work on old fashioned one-on-one, three-on-three. He wants the players to learn how to score and get their own leverage. It's the way the game is going.
Thank god we have a forward thinking coach
When Beilein decides he needs to change, it usually happens pretty quickly. Coaches never admit when they are wrong or need to change something. That isn't a problem at Michigan.
Yes, like our defense. That change happened so quickly. It only felt like 10 years.
I think the important phrase in there is "decides he needs to change," which is the part that took a while, in my opinion.
Kind of weird that "forward-thinking" in 2019 is catching up with the 1980s, though. The whole point of the ol' Stockton-to-Malone pick-and-roll was because switching was an unthinkable option against Karl Malone.
Today's game has frontcourt players who can stay in front of the guard, but it's staggering to me that a frontcourt player whose job is to set screens on offense can't finish while being guarded by a guy half a foot shorter. You don't necessarily need an elite finisher; just do a friggin' pump-fake with your back to the basket and the [switching] guard is in a terrible situation. For all the lateral quickness in the world, he can't jump twice if his feet are already off the ground.
The problem is our guards are pretty bad at entry passes. So we do not utilize the mismatch more.
Now I'm not the world's biggest basketball fan, but this seems odd to me. Now I could be very wrong on this, but wasn't the focus on defense and having an offense relying on star players posting up and generating their own shots..the way basketball was in the old days (and by old I mean up to about 5 to 10 years ago)? I thought that was all going to be replaced by teams full of 3 point wizards...in fact...wasn't Beilein seen as one of the people leading the way there? It's confusing to see him say the game is going in the direction that he himself appears to have led it away from.
So is that fad over now or is Beilein simply reacting to the outcome of this season for Michigan where they fell short of their (and the fanbase's) loftiest ambitions perhaps due to a lack of players that can generate offense individually?
Didn't you just answer your own question?
If teams don’t fear you in the paint, regardless of how you get there either via post up or iso, how do you plan to shoot said 3s from said wizards?
I think it is to counter the defensive trend to switching, making sure you can capitalize on mismatches with solid post-up fundamentals
I think you nailed it. Teams that are really good at switching are able to neutralize offenses that rely too much on ball screens.
Yes.
He knows he doesn't have any pure shooters, so he's looking for ways to leverage what he does have in order to manufacture points.
I'm not a huge fan either, but I think it's just part of the evolution of the game, and that evolution is somewhat cyclical. Beilein was ahead of the curve on the no-post, 5-out, shoot 3s from anywhere offense, but almost everyone does that now and teams are getting better at defending it. So you have to go somewhere else for ideas, and that is back to older styles which need to be integrated into the gameplan.
Also, this is personnel driven - the team currently is lacking the deadly 3PT shooter we've gotten used to, from Stauskas to Walton to Duncan Robinson. Without that, we need to get other ways of scoring points efficiently, and using our players' abilities. Teske can't shoot like Wagner, probably, but he should be able to post up and get layups and dunks, and the offense needs to practice making that happen.
Their just adding a tool to the tool box, not changing everything.
It is true that teams are better defending the 5-out with quicker centers who can switch, but I think Beilein sees the need to change also because he no longer has the players for it. Wagner was the 5 in the 5-out, so you can do various things including, for comparison's sake, a simple pick-and-pop.
A Simpson-Teske screen, to complete the comparison, needs more things going on because neither are good shooters. Simpson's a smart passer and he's got that running hook, but he almost exclusively drives to his right. And Teske is basically an anti-finisher; he can't even consistently exploit a mismatch. Beilein's current squad is a pass-first offense that can't get anything going if it can't free up a guy on the perimeter, which isn't the worst problem when their coach is second to none in the world at doing just that. But if you've got the long athletes to defend them, it's relatively easy to force these guys into situations they're not good at. It's pretty simple but they do need a Walton or Wagner who can pressure the defense. Unfortunately we're also talking about two of the best defenders in Michigan basketball history so it's not as simple as swapping them out for better offense. Simpson's unlikely to turn into Curry in a single offseason (or ten, at this point), but Teske's got the quickness to learn a little Dream Shake, or at the very least a Tim Duncan bank shot.
He didn't say he's going to scrap our offensive system entirely, just incorporate these elements into it more than we did this season.
Right now it’s a pace and space game with positionless players....teams that have guys who can create their own shots or dish for easy ones for others are having success. We struggle doing these things this season and relied on shooting 3’s
Love Coach B. He’ll figure it out.
Hoops O seems to change with the wind, but D still wins championships.
And 1 unconscious shooter helps. ?
We’ll see who that shooter is within 36 hrs.
Peace out y’all. Going to consume Foothills Jade IPA in Winston-Salem NC.
My D has been an unconscious shooter at times.
Might want to get that checked out, bud.
Hmm... These ideas sound great, John but what about finding a shooter that can save our asses when we go 1-19 from beyond the arc.
Pretty please with sugar on top?
Given Michigan's season-long three-point percentage, 0 for 18 was about a one in 1870 chance, making the assumptions that the looks they were getting were about average (if anything, that's being pessimistic), that each trial is independent, and that all basketball courts are interchangeable.
If Michigan shot 50% as a team -- which would have led the country by a wide margin -- and hit the same 1 in 1870 chance, they would have been... 2 for 18.
They'd have to have shot about 70% from three in order to overcome those odds and still make enough shots to matter in the outcome (that's about 6 of 18).
TTU is a good team, and I tip my hat to them, and they may well have beaten Michigan if even Michigan's luck had been average. But, it wasn't -- Michigan got unlucky to an extent that any given team would only expect to experience about once every 60 seasons. (However, because there are so many teams in college basketball, you'd expect it to happen once every month or two across the sport due to the law of large numbers). The primary, driving factor behind Michigan getting blown out wasn't skill, TTU defense, coaching, or any individual player doing poorly. It was bad luck.
I agree with all of your statistics, but I don’t know how you call that luck. Making or missing shots is controlled by the players. Missing a bunch of threes is no more “bad luck” than turning it over way more than usual or missing way more defensive assignments than usual.
I think what you really mean is that they played uncharacteristically poorly, in a big game. But it’s not luck.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The numbers that I quoted you are from a binomial distribution of a random variable that occurs with likelihood of P(X), repeated n times. Michigan was a 34.2% three-point shooting team on the season. Several analyses have shown that three-point shooting is mostly invariant of the opponent -- an opponent can control how many threes you shoot but not how frequently you make them. (The idea, of course, is that players will shoot threes more often if they're open, and they will pass the ball if they're not, and all the defense can control is how open the offense gets).
If any event happens 34.2% of the time, the likelihood of having 18 consecutive failures is a little better than 0.05%. That sounds implausible, right? But, due to the law of large numbers, eventually even the implausible is virtually guaranteed to occur. That's why people win the lottery, even though any individual's chance of winning is infinitesimal.
So, I mean exactly what I say. Michigan got extremely unlucky to miss 18 consecutive shots. It had nothing to do with shooting poorly, because shooting poorly is mostly about shot selection. They took a lot of wide-open shots, and they just didn't go in. (Heck, how many were halfway down and popped back out?)
Randomness is an extremely frustrating concept, because it feels so unfair to look at an event in life and say "I got unlucky." However, it's a much bigger factor in life than most people realize.
Every single thing that happens on the planet earth has a probability attached to it. That does not mean everything is luck, unless you want to define the word in a very bizarre way. If the UVA player missed his free throws against Auburn in their game, despite being a generally good shooter, would you say, “man, he just got unlucky”? If you would, you sure have a different definition of luck than I do.
Yes, I would. In fact, that would be precisely what happened. And he got lucky to make all three; an 82.5% free throw shooter only has about a 56% chance to make 3/3.
Not to repeat myself, but luck has a much greater role in life than most people realize. The skill in free throw shooting comes in practicing your form in order to improve your overall chance every time you take a shot, but there's nothing you can do to ensure any particular shot goes in (or nobody would ever miss unless they slipped or something).
Okay, I think the issue is we have very different definitions of what constitutes "luck," at least as applied to sports. By your definition, the result of every contest is luck, because every team has a certain likelihood on each possession to score, turn it over, commit a foul, etc. If they perform worse than expected, that's unlucky in your world, and if better, then they're lucky.
I don't think that's how most people would define luck in the sports context, but I understand you now.
I think it goes without saying that Beilein will hold many shoot arounds and the players themselves will put up a lot of shots on their own. duh
Need a clutch shooter next year, regardless of offseason stuff...
"Clutch" doesn't exist. It's a statistical anomaly that has no predictive power, and it's usually based upon small sample sizes and selective recall / confirmation bias.
If there were a player who somehow could perform better under pressure, you would find a way to put that player under pressure all the time.
After all, Trey Burke and Derrick Walton were both extremely "un-clutch" before they became "clutch." Jordan Poole hit one of the most "clutch" shots in Michigan history, and now some people on this board seem to want to run him out of town on the rail.
While I agreed with your luck argument, I disagree with your comment about players and performing under pressure. Different people perform better in pressure situations than others. Some people get more nervous or do not have the confidence thus impacting their decision making and physical performance. Others excel when pushed to their limit while some people collapse.
In my playing days, I was often more than happy to pull up from three. Better to get three points per shot than two. But when I knew my team really needed points (the other team was on a run or we were struggling, or it was a close game late), I passed on the three and worked until I could get a layup. Why? Because I converted layups at a much higher percentage than I did threes. Why didn’t I play like that all game? Because it was impossible to play with that same determination on every play and it would not have fit within the flow of the team. The flip side of that, the guy I considered our most skilled player would never get the ball when it mattered most. Everyone on our team knew he simply didn’t perform well in those situations even if he had already put up 20 points in the game.
If clutch existed, you'd be able to find it in the statistics. Many people have looked for it, because conventional wisdom supports your view. At the D-I level, I expect every player in the rotation to be capable of handling pressure. I'd somewhat be willing to believe that some people could be un-clutch -- making mistakes due to pressure -- but I simply can't believe that anyone is extra-clutch and yet still manages to stay on a D-I team. That tells me said player isn't concentrating, and that's a problem that either gets fixed or he doesn't play.
What you're describing in your own game isn't clutch vs. un-clutch -- it's understanding the game situation and when you need to go for a lower-variance play above a higher-variance one, even if the higher-variance play is higher EV. (Obvious example: down 1, three seconds left, and you have an open look at 3 or an uncontested driving lane for a dunk / layup. Even if you shoot 45% from 3 and 60% at the rim, the layup is the better play).
When someone talks about "clutch," they mean the mysterious ability to somehow select when to make their shots -- like, so-and-so is a 35% three-point shooter, but when the game is on the line, he shoots 70% (and presumably shoots 30% or whatever when the game isn't on the line to make the numbers balance). That behavior has been repeatedly shown not to exist across major sports. High school? Maybe you get someone who collapses under pressure. D-III? Possibly. Major D-I? No way; they'd never have made it that far.
I'd argue the decision making is a partial component of what makes a player clutch.
Example: I'd bet money, more times than not, given the situation I described, Jordan Poole would settle for a step back three. That is not who I want handling the ball in those moments. You are not simply clutch when you make the shot and not when you don't. It's about doing everything possible to insure the points are made (including, making a pass to an open guy for an easy layup if needed).
I think you could come up with a stat to measure this and it has less to do with straight shooting percentage and more to do with conversion in specific game situations. In essence, how many points does a player generate in a given game situation taking into account shooting percentage based on floor location, assists and free throws generated/made. I would also throw in steals/turnovers generated as well as rebounds. All of those types of plays can be critical to winning a game.
I am worried on this change of direction. In my (non-expert) opinion, the majority of good iso players are your typical 5* recruits. The guys Beilein doesnt want to get involved with. I believe its MUCH easier to find under-the-radar 3 point specialists like Novak, Stu, Duncan Robinson, etc than it is to find 3*/4* guys who can consistently beat 5* opponents 1 on 1.
I believe in Beilein, but I think this is going to be an uphill battle.
This isn't Beilien completely changing what he does. Teams found ways to stop our offense this year by switching all over. The correct counter to that is to get better one on one play, or take advantage of a 1-5 switch by getting to your post player. In the past we've had Burke, Stauskas, Lavert, Walton, MAAR who could take guys off the dribble. Its not about changing style, it just about addressing our biggest weakness.
Understood, but of all those players you listed, MAAR is the only one who was an "average" Beilein recruit. I guess you could lump Levert in there. Burke was a generational player and Stauskas was a rare unicorn.
MAAR was way BELOW an average Beilein recruit (2*!), while Levert was barely a 3* and Burke was a 3* when he committed. Stauskas was too, IIRC, and later blew up to 4*. So those are not good examples, to be honest. The 5* guys we have recruited (or gotten via transfer) were not good 1on1 players (GR3, Matthews). Both Irvin and Walton were higher rated and completely different kinds of players. Walton eventually got there as a drive and dish + step back 3 kind of player. But it took a while. Irvin even was pretty solid in that role when he needed to be.
The Beilein emphasis on ball screens since 2012ish (butterfly era) has led to a deviation from his previous offensive schemes. He was ahead of the ball screen curve and now needs to adapt from there. It is still the bread and butter of most offenses, but there needs to be more multiple options for the offense. If anything, Beilein was squeezing as much offense out of the pieces he had this year and that was pretty damn good considering the individual offensive talents of this team.
I would love to see more Poole on ball screen action, because he is a good passer and able to drive in the Stauskas/Levert mold. (Think late career Irvin's effectiveness with the Walton and Levert injuries.) There's potential there.
If X could get his 3-point shot a little better and have the occasional Poole ball screen possession with X camping in the corner, there would be more options for this offense.
I'm still amazed we got 30 wins after losing MAAR, Wagner, Duncan and only really adding Iggy into the rotation.
You said all the talent was 5 star talent and then listed why all the 4 guys who were not 5 star talent but have been good at creating their own shot don’t count. Make up your mind. None of MAAR, Levert, Burke, Stauskas, or Wagner were ranked any higher than DDJ. None of those guys were ranked any higher than Johns. Being a rare unicorn or a generational talent doesn’t mean that they started out any better than guys already on the team or that will be here in the coming years
I agree and also am seeing TT in the finals with a great D and one 5* quality player (who hardly scored last night) who can iso.
Jared Culver was outside the Top 300. He just ISO'd Tech to the game.
Mo had the ability to do both ISO and shoot 3s--these are the types of players we need.
In short, we need a stud player and we need shooters to be at the ready. This is not new. The only newness is JB admitting that nobody on the roster is very good at driving or playing ISO when those things are needed.
So Beilein says he wants the players to work on getting better 1 on 1 and somehow he is changing his offensive style ? My goodness some of you love to overreact.
Being able to create 1 on 1 is beneficial for any team. In Beilein system it’s important that our guys take advantage of potential mismatches. Maybe when Tillman switching on ball screens won’t be able to hurt us next year.
He isn't changing a thing. In terms of 1 on 1 play this is always what he wants in regards to switches. It is why MAAR was the biggest loss from last year. He was a wizard at 1 on 1 play. It is why DDJ will be so important for the future.
Now I will believe the post play stuff when he actually does it. It has been a huge weak area with a JB offense. He has nothing buy stand around and try to dump it in off a switch. Very easy to help. Other than his UCLA screen with a shooter for the 5 to get it on the block there isn't much else.
Iso basketball has always been apart of the game. And he's had good iso scorers in the past. The difference this year was nobody was scared of our shooters so those iso opportunities aren't there. For him to say that "thats the way the game is going" to me speaks to probably not running such a complicated offense so your young guards can step in and play.
Thank God we have a coach that can see deficiencies, adjust effectively, and move forward.
And one that doesn't throw his own senior players under the bus when a game doesn't go his way...
Every successful Michigan team had a one on one guy who could put pressure on the defense and hit tough low percentage shots. 2013 it was Trey, 2014 it was Nik. Last year it was Mo and to a lesser extent MAAR. This year it should've been Matthew's but he never took that step.
I dont care what level or era you play you have to have a guy who can beat his man off the dribble
Poole is the best tough shot maker beilein has had here, but he’s nowhere near as consistent as those other guys. He hits some ridiculous shots. Just has to be better at getting good looks or be more consistent at hitting said difficult shots.
I think you are forgetting about Trey Burke. Also, Stauskas and Levert were better at making tough shots. Poole takes more tough shots than any other player Beilein has had, but they need to go in at a much better clip to assert he’s the best at said shots.
This is correct. Poole is arguably his most talented ISO player ever but Poole and his family need to look in the mirror. The opportunities are there but it's better to consistently make 19 foot shots than spectacular 21 ft shots fading away.
When I see Poole, I see a guy who is trying to be like Carsen Edwards. He just hasn't developed a consistency to his game yet. I like Poole but I get the impression his family thinks he is better than he actually is at this point. Poole reminds me of a frosh Stauskas. More athletic just not as consistent. It's there to be had if harnessed.
I know nothing, but to me most of the following statement about scoring in isolation moves seems aimed at Poole:
“... But it's not Step-back University. It's how do we take the ball to basket, how do we pivot — it's the whole thing because some of our guys have just that one move (step-back jumper). With two seconds to go, it's probably the only shot you can get but there are other ways, like get to the foul line. ... we have to get better at it.”
Yes. Efficiency is getting to the foul line and making 2 ft's. Stepping back is not nearly as efficient unless you are Steph Curry?
This could all be the Steph Curry effect where everyone wants to shoot shots further away.