Yesterday's final hoops play with a "1992 Kentucky v Duke" spin
I didn't get a chance to actually see the basketball game until last night. After watching the final play, my first reaction was similar to that shared by our resident cliff jumpers. Where was the D? But instead of going ape shit, like said resident cliff jumpers, I focused that energy on answering that question. The D was looking for the long outlet pass. Then I had a flash back to the 1992 regional final game between Duke and Kentucky. I remember the game pretty vividly because I was rooting for Kentucky something fierce. I wanted Duke out of the tourney in the chance that Michigan made the finals. Most all of us know how that turned out.......
Anyway, the situation was awfully similar to yesterday's game. There were 2.1 seconds left and Duke was in bounding under their own basket.
The player position was different than OSU's, but I look at what happened in that game and I think that, realistically, a long pass is the higher percentage option and I don't fault Beilein for his D. Turner's shot was a 1 in 20 prayer, and that might be a generous assumption.
My intentions are not to kick off another anti-Beilein diatribe, especially since the board has appeared to calm down. I apologize to the board if this happens. I just think it's funny how we are quick to criticize play calling of people infinitely more qualified than us. The funny thing is. If Michigan would have had a man on Turner and OSU would have scored on a bomb to the paint, the same people bitching now would have been bitching that Beilein should have been expecting that play.
On a side note, from watching the replay, Turner certainly benefited from at least a half second delay on the clock from when the ball reached his hands. Granted, I never pay attention to when the clock normally starts on an in bounds play so maybe this is a delay that is normal and expected. I'm sure that this has been rehashed in other threads, and I really don't want to grasp at straws. Just curious to what the overall opinion is.
"Turner's shot was 1 in 20..."
Bingo. At what point do stop blaming the "corching," and just realize that one of the best, most complete Big 10 players in the last 20 years made a fantastic, statistically improbable play to win the game? They won because they deserved to win. Life isn't always black and white, but here it is.
He is the best player in the country, yet his biggest weakness is 3 pt shooting. It makes me so mad.
idk...i blame this more on the angry michigan hating god than anything else, but if you told me this game would come down to the best player in the country with an uncontested 40 footer, i would be pretty nervous.
if someone had told me prior to the game that the best OSU could get to win the game was a 40-footer (Turner, LeBron, Kobe, doesn't matter in my mind) with a fraction of a second left, against this Michigan team, I would have said, "Sure, I'll take that." Pose the same scenario to Thad Matta prior to the game, I suspect his answer would have been something different.
to defend on that play like we are supposed to defend on every other play.
We did not defend and as result we did not take a great player and a good team out of their comfort zone. We let them do exactly what they wanted to do and they achieved their outcome and sadly, we did not.
This is all pretty basic I think.
Isn't that what we did? We don't normally put on full-court pressure, nor do we put a defender in a man's grill when he's dribbling across midcourt. On any play, I think Beilein is perfectly happy with the opponent heaving up a 40-footer. We played the percentages. The fact that a 28% 3-point shooter happened to make a shot that he'll probably never make again in an organized basketball game does not mean that we necessarily did something wrong.
to put a little pressure on them with 2+ seconds left. We did not do that. We've complained about defensive approaches in football like this from Carr to Herrman to Shafer to GERG. I think the parallel is congruent with basketball. To me this was Kordell Stewart to Westbrook all over again.
And there was nothing wrong with the way we defended the Stewart pass, either. We've used that exact defense in literally hundreds (if not thousands) of end-of-half situations and that is the only time I believe we've ever given up a TD.
The thing that fans have to accept is that on a given play, offense and defense are not necessarily zero-sum. It's possible for both to play well, or both to play poorly, at the same time. The fact that Westbrook caught a tipped pass does not mean that we did something wrong. The fact that Turner made a 40-footer does not mean we did something wrong. Sometimes you can play perfectly well and still get beat. It sucks, but that's how it goes.
(And it goes both ways. Indiana had a perfectly good defense against us on the last play of the '79 game, but AC made a great move to split two defenders on his way to the endzone. Guys just make plays sometimes.)
that Stu Douglas had a hand right in Turner's face as he let that shot go.
...because, frankly, having nobody would have been just as effective having a flat-footed Stu Douglass, a guy that is five inches shorter than Evan Turner, passively put a hand up in the air. If you really wanted to get a hand in Turner's face, having Manny do it would have been far more effective.
This is a new thought, that I hadn't really considered. It is a good point, and I agree. But I think you can do both effectively. 1 man up over half court to force a short inbound pass to move laterally instead of straight down court, and the remaining 4 back, guarding the bomb.
My only thing is though, if you have Turner shoot the shot he got, in the same fashion, running up the court, 20 times, I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of money that he makes 4-5 of them. It really wasn't as low percentage of shot as they needed to force. In any case, it's over, and once again, these stinging defeats will make the victories of the future taste that much sweeter. Go Blue!
"Turner's shot was a 1 in 20 prayer, and that might be a generous assumption."
Um, 1 in 20? No way. A 37-foot wide open shot is not a half court shot. I would say if Evan Turner took that shot 100 times, he would hit 15-20 of them.
When the other team has to go the length of the court in 2.2 seconds, they should not be able to get off a 15-20% shot. Hell, I'd argue they shouldn't be allowed to get off a 1/20 shot.
I don't know about 15/20, but I agree with your sentiment. It really wasn't as low percentage as people make it out to be.
Think about it, this is the type of shot they screw around taking in pregame, and sometimes dudes hit 50% from behind half-court. It really wasn't a difficult shot. Making it in that situation makes it a bit tougher, but it wasn't the 1-2% chance shot we needed.
I don't think there is any shot from inside halfcourt that's a 1-2% chance, so that's probably not a realistic expectation. 2.2 seconds is slightly more than catch-and-shoot time; the offensive player can take a dribble or two and get set first. Even if that 15-20% figure is correct (and I think it's inflated), then we're talking an 80-85% chance we win in that situation. That's good for us.
Well, my realistic expectation in that scenario is that he doesn't cross half-court. That's what I am saying, that he is forced to shoot from 50-60 feet, because the pressure has forced him laterally or to pass again, in which case time runs out.
I agree, no shot from inside half court with that little of pressure is less than 10-20%.
I don't know how realistic that expectation is. If we'd have brought up more guys to have backcourt pressure, OSU most likely would have attempted a deeper pass. It's not like the rules required them to inbound in the backcourt. They did so because there was nothing open further downcourt.
Again, I realize that, but with the deeper pass, the defense reacts and the pass is likely being thrown into traffic. This yields a shot in traffic, which would likely be a lower percentage than the one Turner ended up taking. Plus, I'd much rather see it in the hands of someone else, than Turner, with the deep pass in traffic.
Whether it was a 1 in 10 shot or a 1 in 100 shot is irrelevant. The point is, we made that shot far easier than it would/should/could have been had there been somebody hounding him the whole time.
Yes, but if someone was hounding him then 1) there would have been more risk of a foul (and imagine that outcry if we'd committed one there) and 2) it could have left someone further down court open. There's a tradeoff with whatever you do. We obviously committed to not giving up anything near or within the arc.
1) We've all watched enough basketball to know that you basically have to commit murder to get a foul in that situation, and 2) once Turner started dribbling there wouldn't have been enough time for him to pass the ball to anyone and then have that player catch and shoot the ball with any accuracy.
P.S. Did you watch the end of the MSU vs. Minnesota game? They had not one, but two guys hounding the dribbler. The result, the Minnesota shooter barely drew backboard.
There are a million different ways to put much more pressure on the ball and shot without fouling him. Merely making him move laterally instead of straight on reduces the chance of him making it. And again, Turner is NPOTY candidate. I would've rather had someone else be more open downcourt than to see him get that shot.
Given that Turner is a 28% 3-point shooter, and that virtually all of his attempts come from just beyond the arc (which is 20'9"), I'd doubt that his percentage on a shot from close to double that distance would be in the 15-20% range. It's probably in the single digits.
Well, I don't think that all of Turner's 3's throughout the year were uncontested. He's also the a NPOTY candidate and practically by definition that means he's a clutch, big time player. Just like Manny, he may take bad 3's throughout a game, but there's nobody else you want in control of the game late.
I'll concede 20% may be high. But I don't think 15% is high.
And does this change if Deibler caught the ball? The same thing applies: we shouldn't be giving up that decent of an open look in 2.2 seconds.
The intent of the D was not to give Turner an uncontested shot. He was Douglass' mark. Buford set a pretty solid pick on Douglass and he got back to Turner just as he was taking the shot. He actually did get a hand up. Have you watched the replay?
Solid pick? The screen was about 15 feet away from Turner, so Stu wasn't even playing him tight enough to at all slow down Turner, which is the biggest problem. Stu recovered, but far too late and by the time he was able to get back in front of Turner, Turner had already risen and by the time Stu got a hand up, the ball was practically gone.
Given that Turner is 6'7" and Stu is 6'2", that's pretty uncontested as far as I'm concerned.
But whatever, I've finally moved on. This year was such a disappointment that I just knew that OSU was gonna hit some improbable shot. I just wish that we made it more difficult on them.
On to hockey and Munn North!
Just watch the play again.
I did, several times. Turner took the shot in complete rhythm, and was allowed to advance the ball without pressure.
We'll agree to disagree, I suppose.
1. He had 2.2 seconds to get to 40 feet from the basket. I don't care who you are. That's not a lot of time to make a low percentage shot.
2. The shot wasn't exactly uncontested. Douglas got a hand up after recovering from a pretty solid screen.
EDIT: Bah...... meant to be a reply to mattbern.
as it turned out, he only needed 1.8 to get 37 feet from the basket. There was still 0.4 on the clock when the ball was out of his hand.
to defend the ball coming into play. We had the advantage of time being on our side. OSU did not. If we cause them a deviation of 0.5 at that point that is key. We let them do what Thad Matta drew up on the white clip board and the rest is history.
I am pro- John Beilein. I have coached basketball for years and the game continues to humble me. It's my belief that you need to enforce your will on the plans of the opposition and we did not do that yesterday at the end of the game.
We put in a defense that took away the deep pass and made them throw a relatively short inbounds to Turner in the backcourt. Do you think that's what Matta drew up in the huddle?
The odds of just completing what would have amounted to a 20-yard pass with a man in the passer's face aren't much better than the odds of Turner making the original shot. Even if the receiver is fortunate enough to go up and catch the ball, he has to then come back down and hit a turnaround jumper, all (hopefully) with a man in his face. To me, that sounds a heckuva lot better than giving the NPOY a free run towards the basket.
drew up 2-3 options given what the defense was. We allowed them to inbound the ball without pressure and dribble the ball up over mid court for a good look from 37' away. We see players on TV and YouTube making outrageous shots all the time. I do not feel Turner's shot was so out of the ordinary.
You reference Youtube?
Out of curiosity, how many people do think are running to Youtube to post a clip of a tough shot that doesn't go in?
The inbound pass should have been contested by Kentucky in 1992 and by Michigan yesterday, or at least have a guy right on Turner's hip when he caught the pass. I am not always the biggest fan of a complete prevent defense on a hail mary, it gives the QB a lot of time to wind up and throw. Pressure at the point of attack usually disrupts the intended outcome. I also think they should have adjusted the D based on where Turner lined up. Guarding against a long pass would make sense if Turner was down court, but he wasn't. It was a heck of a shot by him in any case. Also, what a terrible year for them to lose a game like that with MSU and Wisconsin losing as well; they had a legit shot at winning the tourney.
would agree with you. It would have been one less player down court trying to prevent him from catching that pass.
A defender on the baseline is not going to alter a long pass.
Hill knew where he was throwing that ball, with or without someone in his face.
I have seen at least three documentaries about that game and in each one Grant Hill states that the fact that no one guarded him was the key because he was easily able to get the ball where he wanted. Earlier in that year they tried the same play and Grant Hill's pass was way off target because someone was guarding him. His pass may have still gotten to Laettner, but not in such a good position.
It doesn't alter the angle of the pass, but it alter the view of the guy throwing the pass if someone tall is in front of him.
The other mistake Kentucky made on the play was that both the guys were between the shooter and the basket. No one was fronting him to make the inbound pass difficult to catch, and he could just shoot over both. (And really, if you have an extra man in that dituation, who are you going to double?).
That Hill didn't know how hard he needed to throw that ball to get it to the free throw line?
That play was by design. Laettner was not going to be in any other position.
To answer your question, you double the guy who was 9 for 9 with 29 points at that point. Kentucky did, and he still got the shot off. If Kentucky would have had a man on baseline, they could not have doubled Laettner.
Even if he knows exactly where Laettner is going to be, not being able to see him makes the throw harder. Because even if A. you assume that Laettner got a free position with no obstruction, and is EXACTLY where he needs to be, then B. it's just harded to throw to a spot you can't see than one you can. Try hitting a target with a a ball. Then try doing it with something blocking your view of it. (With clear view and clear shot, he STILL overthrows it a little...someone in his way makes it more difficult).
And the second part, I SAID that if you double Laettner, and that you have to have one fronting him and one behind him. They have both guys behind him, so he gets a free catch, and can shoot freely over both (because the alternative is going to be a foul on him...it was Duke in the 90's.) You have to have one guy in front to deny the pass to him, and the other behind him so he have a clear shot at the basket. Heck, one of the two guys BACKS OFF HIM after he catches it. It was horrible defense all around. Probably cost us a vacated national title too. (Though I've said elsewhere, if we had won, nothing would have been vacated).
What does this have to do with Michigan's game? I'm not sure anymore. Other than they needed someone to cover the inbound guy, and if they chose not, to have two guys on Turner, and if they chose not, at least have some guys impeding the guy who caught the balls dribble before he crosses half court, and if they chose not, to at least have someone taller jumping in the shooter's face, preferably two, just in case one guy is screened.
Agreed
I'll trust Grant Hill when he said not having anyone guard him made the difference in his throw. I just think the main point is that if Michigan thought he was going to throw a long pass, then they should have guarded the inbound man, and if not, they should have doubled Turner.
You mention two teams that in a span of 18 years scored on last-second scenarios when the inbounds guy wasn't defended. How many didn't score in the same circumstances, over the same period?
After a made basket, the inbounder can run the baseline. That makes it very difficult to contest his pass. And with two seconds left, the inbounder is obviously not going to get the ball back. Given those two facts, why bother putting a defender on him? Why not drop that defender back and play 5 on 4 in the rest of the court?
I mentioned those two scenarios because those were the two that were brought up. I also said that if they were not guarding the inbound pass, then there should have been more defense waiting for turner. If their intention was to play 5 on 4, then they should have been double teaming Turner, so even if one man was picked, the second man would still be with him. Turner did make a heck of a shot, but Michigan could have made it more difficult.
You keep mentioning that the baseline guy can move...
You know how much harder it is to throw a deep pass accurately if you're running up and down an endline? And how if you're throwing it short how you move them out of the position they want to get the ball (which affects screens, sweet spots, and all sorts of set-ups)?
Keeping everyone back is never a good idea. I'll take my chances at a jump ball pass than a clean dribble and look every time.
The inbounder doesn't have to throw on the run. He has five seconds to clear space for himself, stop and throw it. They pretty much always get off a clean pass in this situation, no matter how the big the defender is.
EDIT: to the mystery poster who is negging everything I post, I am filled with indignation. Don't push me or I'll be forced to shake my fist!
Good discussions going on in this thread w/ solid points made on both sides of the argument.
Like you need it... ;-P
He does have to throw on the run, or make a sudden stop and a quick pass. You're acting like the guy covering it can't run up and down the baseline either. Yes, the guy with the ball has a split second advantage because he knows what he's doing, but it's not so long a time to break free, stop, set your feet, and still get a clear look before someone is waving a hand in your face. You are either rushed physically, mentally, or both. It changes the play. Does it automatically stop it every time? No, of course not. Otherwise these plays would never work. But the whole discussion isn't what would have stopped a great shot; it's what would have made that great shot HARDER.
March 13th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
Turner traveled.
(really -- after his second dribble, the ball is in his hand as his left foot is on the floor. Then he comes to a jump stop and pops it from 38. To do so, he had to move his left foot, which technically should have counted as his pivot.
Now I'm aware this hasn't been called in 20 years, but I stopped playing competitively 23 years ago, so it never fails to grate.)