Beilein used it as a teaching moment to discuss:
1 - the intricacies of the pick & roll
2 - sportsmanship and ethics
3 - overtime offensive sets
4 - history of the shot clock
Not only can't we inbound but we allow sportscenter top 10s on opponent inbounds
At least we have that elite offense
I never said we are pathetic losers. I'm saying it's possible we go into every season with a fundamentally flawed strategy. I'm calling attention to our process primarily. If we went into every season with a top 20 defensive team and had our same outcomes I would not be disappointed with those finishes. The problem is I don't think our defense is ever good enough to win it all, which again thus far seems to be a pre-requisite. We only have 15 seasons of data so it's possible this is all small sample size but why bet on THAT when we can just bet on defense?
...when it does not predict championships? The Kenpom era tells us that no team with a defense worse than top 21 has ever won a title. Can it be done? Only time will tell. But why invest in offense when you can instead invest in defense? It's like having a shiny sports car that you can't drive when there's a thunderstorm. Ultimately pointless. No Beilein team has come close to top 21. Only one Michigan team in Kenpom era has done it and that was the 2004 Ammaker team that won the NIT. Clearly, defense alone cannot get it done (see Cincinnatii every year) but it is a prerequisite for winning it all. A prerequisite we never have.
Need to bring in a defensive minded coach because no team has won the championship in the Kenpom era with an Adj D of 22 or worse. Beilein's best Adj D ever never came close to that. So clearly we need to do things differently next time.
Other names that intrigue me (relatively young guys, not big names, don't make a ton of $):
Mick Cronin, Cincinatti (always great D)
Kevin Willard, Seton Hall (had solid D at Iona and again at SH, recruits 5 stars who get to the league)
As soon as we started pressing we immediately forced a turnover and duncan robinson converted it into a quick transition layup. We then abandoned it very quickly and their lead grew.
Teams without 5-star talent have pressed effectively (hello VCU?) so I don't think there is any rule about who can use it or in what situations. Again, I don't understand why we wouldn't at least try that strategy when up against a turnover prone-team who absolutely crushes us in the paint (ball gets stolen prior to entering the paint = we don't get dunked on). Similarly, if we score fast in transition we don't get bogged down in a half-court set against the #1 defense in the country! THIS WAS THE EXACT WAY IOWA CAME BACK TO BEAT THEM THE PREVIOUS GAME.
...when we are huge underdogs already (especially given Levert being out) don't we want to try the higher variance play? What's the point of lasting the entire game just to get blown out anyway? Couldn't exerting more energy on defense by pressing possibly lead to easier transition baskets and thus save energy on offense? We probably wasted just as much energy running around 8 feet off the 3 point line unable to get an open look, dribbling aimlessly along the baseline, getting annihilated by 7 footers when we attempted to drive, etc.
Can anyone tell me why we didn't start pressing/trapping until the game was basically out of reach? Instead of trying to triple team their bigs in the paint so we can get posterized and put in early foul trouble, why not press the hell out of them from the start so the ball never even makes it into the paint?! Purdue's one glaring weakness was sloppy ballhandling. They were averaging 13 turnovers a game heading into last night. What did we do? Forced only 8! turnovers. I just don't get it.
It's not a coincidence that the majority of these teams are solid every year. Defense wins championships. It's consistent. When our shots don't fall we are garbage.
Clearly most of these coaches are unavailable but I bolded some names - why wouldn't we make a run at guys like this? We need to find a coach who preaches D if we want to win it all. Case closed.
For us to win a national championship under Beilein something will happen that has never happened:
(1) A team wins with a Kenpom adjusted defensive efficiency ranked outside the top 21
(2) A Beilein team has an adjusted defensive efficiency ranked in the top 21
Kenpom's data goes back to 2002. In that timeframe, here are the Adjusted D's of the national champions:
7, 14, 5, 12, 6, 17, 1, 21, 8, 13, 8, 3, 10, 12
Here are Beilein's adjusted D's in that timeframe:
34 (last season at Richmond), 112, 92, 102, 70, 90 (last season at WV), 100, 69, 58, 37, 61, 48, 109, 107
Which is more likely: Beilein figures out a way to get our guys in the top 21 in adjusted defensive efficiency? Or we win the title outside that top 21? If the odds of both of these are low, then we are essentially employing a strategy THAT HAS LOW ODDS OF EVER WINNING IT ALL. Personally, I would rather take a chance on a completely different system that may be worse than ours as long as it has a chance of putting us in that top 21 adjusted D.
Recent Comments
I never said we are pathetic losers. I'm saying it's possible we go into every season with a fundamentally flawed strategy. I'm calling attention to our process primarily. If we went into every season with a top 20 defensive team and had our same outcomes I would not be disappointed with those finishes. The problem is I don't think our defense is ever good enough to win it all, which again thus far seems to be a pre-requisite. We only have 15 seasons of data so it's possible this is all small sample size but why bet on THAT when we can just bet on defense?
...when it does not predict championships? The Kenpom era tells us that no team with a defense worse than top 21 has ever won a title. Can it be done? Only time will tell. But why invest in offense when you can instead invest in defense? It's like having a shiny sports car that you can't drive when there's a thunderstorm. Ultimately pointless. No Beilein team has come close to top 21. Only one Michigan team in Kenpom era has done it and that was the 2004 Ammaker team that won the NIT. Clearly, defense alone cannot get it done (see Cincinnatii every year) but it is a prerequisite for winning it all. A prerequisite we never have.
+1 for Mike White
Need to bring in a defensive minded coach because no team has won the championship in the Kenpom era with an Adj D of 22 or worse. Beilein's best Adj D ever never came close to that. So clearly we need to do things differently next time.
Other names that intrigue me (relatively young guys, not big names, don't make a ton of $):
Mick Cronin, Cincinatti (always great D)
Kevin Willard, Seton Hall (had solid D at Iona and again at SH, recruits 5 stars who get to the league)
As soon as we started pressing we immediately forced a turnover and duncan robinson converted it into a quick transition layup. We then abandoned it very quickly and their lead grew.
https://twitter.com/NotMattPainter/status/685279969090646016
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2016/1/8/10735182/2015-2016-basketball-five-t… (see #4)
Teams without 5-star talent have pressed effectively (hello VCU?) so I don't think there is any rule about who can use it or in what situations. Again, I don't understand why we wouldn't at least try that strategy when up against a turnover prone-team who absolutely crushes us in the paint (ball gets stolen prior to entering the paint = we don't get dunked on). Similarly, if we score fast in transition we don't get bogged down in a half-court set against the #1 defense in the country! THIS WAS THE EXACT WAY IOWA CAME BACK TO BEAT THEM THE PREVIOUS GAME.
Since Kenpom began in 2002, no team has won the title with an ADJ D outside the top 21
In our best defensive year under Beilein (2011), we were 37th.
Our ADJ D dropped from the 60s to 105 after that debacle
...when we are huge underdogs already (especially given Levert being out) don't we want to try the higher variance play? What's the point of lasting the entire game just to get blown out anyway? Couldn't exerting more energy on defense by pressing possibly lead to easier transition baskets and thus save energy on offense? We probably wasted just as much energy running around 8 feet off the 3 point line unable to get an open look, dribbling aimlessly along the baseline, getting annihilated by 7 footers when we attempted to drive, etc.
Can anyone tell me why we didn't start pressing/trapping until the game was basically out of reach? Instead of trying to triple team their bigs in the paint so we can get posterized and put in early foul trouble, why not press the hell out of them from the start so the ball never even makes it into the paint?! Purdue's one glaring weakness was sloppy ballhandling. They were averaging 13 turnovers a game heading into last night. What did we do? Forced only 8! turnovers. I just don't get it.
Coaches with Top 21 Kenpom ADJ D currently:
1. Oklahoma (Lon Kruger)
2. Purdue (Matt Painter)
3. Florida (Billy Donovan)
4. Virginia (Tony Bennett)
5. Villanova (Jay Wright)
6. Valparaiso (Bryce Drew)
7. West Virginia (Bob Huggins)
8. Louisville (Rick Pitino)
9. Kansas (Bill Self)
10. Arizona (Sean Miller)
11. Gonzaga (Mark Few)
12. Kentucky (John Callipari)
13. San Diego St. (Steve Fisher)
14. Xavier (Chris Mack)
15. Cincinnati (Mick Cronin)
16. Iowa State (Steve Prohm)
17. MSU (Tom Izzo)
18. Rhode Island (Dan Hurley)
19. UNC (Roy Williams)
20. Vanderbilt (Kevin Stallings)
21. UConn (Kevin Ollie)
It's not a coincidence that the majority of these teams are solid every year. Defense wins championships. It's consistent. When our shots don't fall we are garbage.
Clearly most of these coaches are unavailable but I bolded some names - why wouldn't we make a run at guys like this? We need to find a coach who preaches D if we want to win it all. Case closed.
For us to win a national championship under Beilein something will happen that has never happened:
(1) A team wins with a Kenpom adjusted defensive efficiency ranked outside the top 21
(2) A Beilein team has an adjusted defensive efficiency ranked in the top 21
Kenpom's data goes back to 2002. In that timeframe, here are the Adjusted D's of the national champions:
7, 14, 5, 12, 6, 17, 1, 21, 8, 13, 8, 3, 10, 12
Here are Beilein's adjusted D's in that timeframe:
34 (last season at Richmond), 112, 92, 102, 70, 90 (last season at WV), 100, 69, 58, 37, 61, 48, 109, 107
Which is more likely: Beilein figures out a way to get our guys in the top 21 in adjusted defensive efficiency? Or we win the title outside that top 21? If the odds of both of these are low, then we are essentially employing a strategy THAT HAS LOW ODDS OF EVER WINNING IT ALL. Personally, I would rather take a chance on a completely different system that may be worse than ours as long as it has a chance of putting us in that top 21 adjusted D.
source? can anyone confirm this?
Tennessee 66, Michigan 65 (45% chance of winning)