Kam Chatman Reportedly Transferring
Barring a last-minute change of heart, source told ESPN that Michigan sophomore Kameron Chatman will transfer.
— Jeff Goodman (@GoodmanESPN) May 3, 2016
because no one ever makes any improvement in college basketball from one season to the next. Darius Morris, Frank Kaminsky, Gary Payton Jr., and Matt Costello disagree. Heck, read Alex Cook's excellent front page post on Donnal. Check out the improvement he made from year 1 to year 2, and most people don't even expect him to start next year.
The biggest improvement kids make is year 1 to year 2.
Walton and Irvin are who they are and I expect another 3rd team all conference or honorable mention season from them.
MAAR is like a poor man's Levert, although at least he can stay healthy.
Robinson is 'just a shooter', and a streaky one at that.
Wagner has the best potential on the team and clearly was the best big man at the end of the year. Hopefully Beilein plays him more this year.
Donnal is who he is at this point and at best he is a shoot first big man who is soft inside.
Everyone else on the roster is either a freshman, walk on, or hasn't played significant college minutes.
Given the lack of experienced depth I don't see them as anything other than a middle pack B1G team and a bubble team for the tournament.
Points per game, by year
Kaminsky: 1.8, 4.2, 13.9, 18.8
Payton Jr.: CC, CC, 13.4, 16
Costello: 1.5, 4, 7, 10.7
AJ Hammons: 10.6, 10.8, 11.9, 15.0
Loy Vaught: 4.6, 10.5, 12.6, 15.5
Some guys do make a big leap in scoring between the first and second year, but a lot of guys make continuous improvement THROUGHOUT their careers. We have 5 guys who can be expected to improve over last season. We are not bringing in a new starter or more, like a lot of teams are. We are not depending on a freshman to step up and fill a starting role. But it's not uncommon for freshmen to contribute right away, so having freshmen backups at a couple positions, especially when one is Ohio's Mr. Basketball, doesn't trouble me.
The problem with looking at points per game is that it doesn't take into account minutes played per game.
As I see it the only guy poised to make a huge improvement is Wagner.
Here is the points per minute by year for our current roster.
Walton Jr: 0.297, 0.322, 0.347 (Steady Improvement, probably won't blow up)
Irvin: 0.434, 0.393, 0.358 (actually getting worse!?)
MAAR: 0.236, 0.311 (Poor man's Levert, see below)
Donnal: 0.320, 0.402 (more improvement than I expected, can he keep it up?)
Robinson: 0.492 (D3), red shirt, 0.387 (0.4 is probably a ceiling for this shooter)
Wagner: 0.333 (I expect this number to blow up next year)
Wilson: 0.083, 0.443 (can he keep up this level of production in a bigger role next year?)
Here is Levert's improvement to compare to MAAR
Levert: 0.213, 0.380, 0.417, 0.532
thanks for doing all that data mining. The key to next season will be Irvin reversing that decline. I can explain why his numbers decreased from year to year (fr->soph, started drawing better quality defenders, soph->jr, back surgery) but that trend better reverse itself next season or I may be joining the chorus of Beilein critics.
But don't all players draw better defenders as they become more involved in the offense?
Here are the points per minute breakdown of those 'late bloomers' you mentioned.
Kaminsky: 0.232, 0.404, 0.513, 0.558
Payton Jr: 0.370, 0.466
Costello: 0.239, 0.273, 0.344, 0.466
AJ Hammons: 0.457, 0.432, 0.490, 0.608
Loy Vaught: 0.353, 0.477, 0.549, 0.516
Kaminsky and Vaught had their biggest improvements from year 1 to year 2 and then saw diminishing improvements each year.
Costello and Hammons saw thier biggest improvement from year 3 to year 4.
It is possible to improve more each year as Hammons and Costello demonstrated but I think they general trend is much more likely to follow that of Kaminsky and Vaught than that of Hammons and Costello.
Frank Kaminsky. Frank Kaminsky was not who he was after two years in the Wisconsin program. Players do improve, and this is not necessarily an exclusive Year 1 to Year 2 phenomenon.
Kaminsky: 0.232, 0.404, 0.513, 0.558
If you look at Kaminsky's points per minute his biggest improvement actually was from year 1 to year 2. He continuted to improve as his career went on but nothing like that freshman to sophmore improvement.
You can find this comment in March of next year. If you think that roster is going to be good, you are sadly mistaken my friend. This isn't NCAA College Basketball 2003 where you play your starters the entire game. We got into the tournament last year, because the kid who is transferring hit a huge shot in the B1G Tournament.
We do not have a single backup at the 1, 2, 3, or 4 who has ever played a meaningful minute in college at their position. As the roster stands now, you are looking at 17-15 type team if they stay healthy -- unless Simpson is the real deal and Walton can play 39 minutes per night as a combo 1/2 Guard.
How will Wagner fare with more game tape of his to study? How quickly will X and Watson be able to pick up the offense. Will Teske and Davis be able to get enough minutes to gain confidence in the Beilein offense and be ready to bang in a physical conference?
I don't think the sky is falling considering Kam has been a big disappointment and it never seemed like the lightbulb went off like it did for Wagner. But it feels like we have so many known weaknesses with our returning players that above average feels like a dream scenario.
Seems he would likely be in line for a ton of PT in 16-17. He started to click toward the end of the year, always looked to be a hard worker. I was hoping for a big leap from him into this season.
Say it ain't so, KC.
I'm not on board with "it's a shit show" or on board with being pissed about the Max situation or Spike situation. I think those things can be explained fairly easily. But 3 guys transferring isn't a good thing before they've graduated isn't a good thing and this is what tends to happen when there are internal problems starting to fester. Yes, it could be coincidence, and each thing can be explained in isolation, but all of them together look like a program that is starting to unravel a bit.
Next year will absolutely be critical for the health of the program going forward or if bigger change will be needed.
This is the first reasonable take I have seen on the "things aren't looking so great" side of things.
/s (--felt like I needed to include this because of all the beliein hate around here)
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
So the roster for next year is this?
PG: Walton, Simpson (fr)
SG: MAAR, Watson(fr)
G/F: Duncan
F: Irvin, Wilson
C: Donnal, Wagner, Teske(fr), Davis(fr)
Pretty sweet roster construction for a team that relies on guards more than anything. Glad there are optimistic people to be found about the next two years.
this isnt good and totally unexpected...However...I am not panicking..I do trust Belien..I mean come on do any of you remember what is what like BEFORE he arrived? Im dissapointed in last year and this year but by prior to Belien arriving those would have been good years. Maybe it is time for a reshuffling and reorg of everything and thats what hes doing...Its not like Dawkins and Chatman were exactly lighting it up...I think Dawkins is a bigger loss and the Spike thing while Im really disappointed I can see both sides..Just because hes transferring to Purdue doesnt even mean he can play and in the end I think its best for both sides..Wish him well and he will ALWAYS have a spot in my heart for what he brought to Michigan...New players new assistants with plenty returning and incoming ,Im not so sure we wont have a pretty good year next year
So how many scholarships do we have available now?
We have four kids coming in this year and now 5 kids have left. Plus didn't we have another carried over from the previous year?
So what is Beilein's plan for those two open scholarships?
at least.
The anti-Beilein wave on this board is unreal.
Does anyone remember 99-08 ?
Since 2009 we've only missed the tournament TWICE! That's fantastic! We aren't UK, KU, Duke, etc.
Take a good hard look at the game we are playing here. It's not just basketball. We are doing really well actually.
I'm glad that we're using the worst period in the program's history as a baseline. Also glad that just making the tournament is considered an accomplishment here.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
a decade-long baseline is not unreasonable for a current comparison. Do you want to compare the football team's accomplishments to Yost's teams? Because even the great and mighty Harbaugh isn't coaching his teams up to outscore the opposition 644-12. Can we just be reasonable about the basketball team, please?
When we're talking about a 100 year history, then yes using the worst decade in program history as a baseline seems unreasonable. Just like using the Yost years as a baseline would be unreasonable for the football program as there's like 115 years of history to consider. Michigan basketball isn't an elite program, but it's much better than what it was during 1999-2008, and acting like we should be grateful for being better than we were during that decade is ridiculous.
Oh wait, you can't, because the NCAA violations forced us to vacate most of that decade. Go back another decade. OK, you really want to use 30-40 years ago as a baseline?
Let's just forget about baselines. What are our expectations? Someone above said we're going to be below average next season. I'd respond, what's average? Average for the 300+ teams? Average for the Big 10? Average for what some people think should be our peer group? I've got news for them, we'll never be average in a group that includes Duke, UNC, and Kentucky. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
I don't think anyone expects blue blood level success. But I think we as a fanbase can, and should, expect better than making the tournament 66% of the time, with only a couple of tourney runs in a decade. And I think we can definitely expect to be much better than we were during the Ellerbe and Amaker years. Being better than that shouldn't be cause for celebration, and it sure as hell shouldn't be a reason to place Beilein on a pedestal.
I'd respond, what's average? Average for the 300+ teams? Average for the Big 10? Average for what some people think should be our peer group?
I'd say "average" for Michigan should be "average" for the top 2/3 of P5 schools.
Anything below about mid-40s overall ranking is below average and below where Michigan should be except on rare occassions.
I've got news for them, we'll never be average in a group that includes Duke, UNC, and Kentucky.
But we should be at least average in a group that contains Wisconsin, MSU, and OSU.
MSU is elite, plain and simple. Wisconsin has finished in the top 4 of the BIG for 429 years in a row. OSU? OK, we should be better than them.
as their baseline expectation for the football program as well.
try again
2007 - 2014. That's eight seasons. Close enough?
Ok, should 2007-2015 be the baseline for Michigan football? Would you be happy if Harbaugh goes 8-4, 9-3 and makes a decent bowl game every year? No, you wouldn't.
He's won the Big 10 conference twice in the past 5 years. When was the last time the football team did that? He's gone to the NCAA 5 times in the past 6 years. That's equivalent to going to a decent bowl game every year. The one year he missed was because LeVert and Walton got injured. That's like the year Harbaugh got injured at QB and the football team limped to a 6-6 record. Injuries happen. That sucks. You can't hold Beilein accountable for that. Well, maybe unrealistic people like you can. But I don't.
The team had already got blown out 3 times before Caris got hurt. We weren't going to be good even if he was healthy.
That was an impressive non-answer to my question. If Harbaugh simply outperforms Hoke and RR, is that reason enough for him to get to keep his job?
What does Beilein make again? More than a lot of NBA and the vast majority of college coaches.
So we're either overpaying him, or he's underperforming.
If we're willing to accept an inferior basketball program, we should at least save some $ in the process. Go hire a good HS coach and pay him $900,000 per year.
Yep, with all the money we've dumped into the program now, in facilities, in paying the head coach, in assistant coaching salaries, there are just no more excuses for us to not be a better program. It all comes down to the man in charge.
It seems like a lot of the arguing about Beilein is rooted in that question: What's the appropriate baseline?
At one extreme, people talk about the Ellerbe/Amaker era. But those were strange years and that's too low. At the other extreme, people talk about the Fab Five years (setting aside the aftermath). But those were also strange years and that's too high.
To me, Beilein's performance is roughly similar to Johnny Orr's and Bill Frieder's.
- Orr: 12 seasons, 2 conference titles, 3 Elite 8s, including a title game
- Frieder: 9 seasons, 2 conference titles, a Sweet 16, and built the championship team (give him 1/2 credit for that one)
- Beilein: 9 seasons, 2 conference titles, 2 Elite 8s, including a title game
That's about what we've been historically. Beilein looks good if you give him credit for pulling us out of a long ugly/boring period in program history, or if you prioritize things like program cleanliness. He looks bad if you focus on recruiting over the past couple of years, or if you prioritize things like program flashiness.
But the extremes of the Beilein debate are getting so tiresome, especially the negative extremes. Every basketball thread is devolving into the same conversation. Firing Beilein now would suggest Wright State-level delusion about what we are, and wouldn't give him nearly enough credit to outperform his recent recruiting success. Letting him retire on his own terms would give him way too much credit for his accomplishments (given program history) and would sell ourselves short as a program. The most reasonable move is to just relax for a little bit and see where this goes.
- Orr: 12 seasons, 2 conference titles, 3 Elite 8s, including a title game
- Frieder: 9 seasons, 2 conference titles, a Sweet 16, and built the championship team (give him 1/2 credit for that one)
- Beilein: 9 seasons, 2 conference titles, 2 Elite 8s, including a title game
Orr:
1968-1974: NCAA tournament only 22-25 teams. Must win conference to make tournament.
1975-1978: NCAA tournament only 32 teams with a limit of 2 per conference. Only 12 teams selected at large.
1979: NCAA tournament only 40 teams
Frieder:
1980-82: NCAA tournament only 48 teams
1983-85: NCAA tournament only 53 teams
1986-89: NCAA tournament only 64 teams
Belien:
2007-2010: NCAA tournament 65 teams
2011-16: NCAA tournament 68 teams
... which is why I didn't say anything about how many tournaments they made.
Orr had a team ('71) that finished 2nd in the Big Ten. That's better than what Beilein's Final Four team did. But that team essentially is no better than, say, Beilein's 2015 sub-.500 ones because of the metrics being applied here.
The solution here is simple: Just use conference winning percentage. No matter the era, conference opponents are one's peers.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
"3 Elite 8s, including a title game"
"a Sweet 16, and built the championship team"
"2 Elite 8s, including a title game"
...alll of those are about "how many tournaments they made".
Yeah, but it appears Beilein peaked and now we are on the downhill side of the mountain.
I don't foresee Michigan competing for a B1G championship next season in Basketball. I think they'll probably be a bubble team next year and every year after that with Beilien at the helm. His only hope to compete is identify sleepers like Burke and Stauskas every single year. Unfortunately that has proven to be much easier said than done.
He has done wonders for the program, and brough some legitimacy back, but now he is 63 years old and it is probably time for a new coach to take over.
with a 10-8 record, 2 games out of third place, without your best player who happened to be a pre-season all-american. Not to mention missing the heart and soul of the team due to Spike's injury. Let's just put that into the proper context, OK?