- Member for
- 4 years 50 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- 7.7% @ South Carolina [73.8]
- 37.0% vs. Va. Tech [110.0]
- 53.8% @ UCLA [130.5!]
- 34.3% @ Iowa [117.3]
- 38.1% vs. Maryland [113.5]
- 50.0% @ Illinois [114.5]
- 47.6% @ Wisconsin [101.9]
- 26.9% @ Michigan St [100.0]
- 37.1% vs. Ohio St [101.7]
- Wisconsin 87.2% (1st nationally)
- Ohio St 68.2% (29th)
- Michigan 68.2% (30th)
- Illinois 65.3% (43rd)
- Purdue 60.7% (76th)
- Northwestern 54.9% (125th)
- Nebraska 50.3% (179th)
- Penn St. 48.4% (197th)
- Minnesota 43.8% (234th)
- Rutgers 40.1% (262nd)
- Iowa 38.2% (274th)
- Indiana 37.3% (279th)
- Maryland 35.3% (290th)
- Michigan St 35.0% (294th)
- Wisconsin 2.11 (49th nationally)
- Michigan 2.05 (60th)
- Illinois 1.95 (88th)
- Ohio St 1.71 (179th)
- Northwestern 1.69 (186th)
- Purdue 1.55 (234th)
- Rutgers 1.44 (268th)
- Nebraska 1.34 (288th)
- Minnesota 1.29 (295th)
- Indiana 1.24 (308th)
- Michigan State 1.19 (314th)
- Maryland 1.17 (319th)
- Penn St 1.02 (339th)
- Iowa 0.91 (344th)
- 2012: 111.5 (20th)
- 2013: 120.2 (1st)
- 2014: 123.3 (3rd)
- 2015: 107.8 (67th)
- 2016: 113.6 (30th)
- 2017: 119.7 (8th)
- Iowa St, 2.58 (4th nationally)
- Texas Tech, 2.41 (9th)
- Pitt, 2.30 (18th)
- Arkansas, 2.26 (23rd)
- Clemson, 2.16 (35th)
- Colorado, 2.11 (49th)
- Wisconsin, 2.10 (51st)
- Notre Dame, 2.11 (52nd)
- Michigan, 2.05 (60th)
- Arizona St., 2.03 (66th)
- Washington St., 2.01 (72nd)
|1 day 21 hours ago||Hey now...||
Dunk City says hello! Many of us saw the first-ever 15 seed to advance to the Sweet 16: Florida Gulf Coast, in Dallas, vs. Florida.
Hint: Trey Burke? Kansas? Nik Stauskas in the Elite 8 vs. Florida? :-)
|2 days 21 hours ago||SIBMIHHAT? Yes.||
I love that the SIBMIHHAT scale for Rutgers only goes to "Kinda."
But -- it's Rutgers. I will be mad if any of them make a three. I'm mad they're playing in a conference game against Michigan instead of, say, UConn. :-)
|6 days 10 hours ago||No!||
Michigan does not live and die by the long ball on offense.
In 7 B1G wins: Michigan is 61/150: 40.7%, or about 9/21 per game.
In 6 B1G losses: Michigan is 57/152: 37.5%, or about 9.5/25 per game.
(In their non-conference losses, Michigan made 14/26 vs UCLA, 10/27 vs. Va Tech, and 2/26 vs South Carolina).
On the other hand, here is the breakdown for 2-point shooting:
In 7 B1G wins: Michigan is 126/214, or 58.9% -- about 18/31 per game.
In 6 B1G losses: Michigan is 92/187, or 49.2% -- about 15/31 per game.
When Michigan's offense is playing well, by spacing the floor, not only do they get good looks at 3 point-shots, they also open up the interior for cuts and the pick-and-roll.
However, even when they're not playing well, Michigan's offense hasn't been that bad. They've been held below one point per possession twice this year -- a win vs Texas, and the awful game at South Carolina. In the losses to Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Ohio State, they were between 1 and 1.02 points per possession -- but the losses to Illinois, Maryland, Iowa, and UCLA were all over 1.1 points per possession. Against UCLA, they scored 1.3 points per possession and lost by 18!
Yes, the offense is streaky, within the course of a game. Basketball is a game of runs. But, it does not "die by the 3." The best indicator of how well Michigan's offense is playing is their 2-point percentage.
|6 days 11 hours ago||Not really..||
That's not how the RPI works. The RPI considers your home, neutral, and away records, and who you played, but not which games you won. There is zero difference to your RPI if you win at Minnesota and lose at Nebraska or if you lose at Minnesota and win at Nebraska.
In fact -- given that you were going to play both of them anyway -- from a purely RPI standpoint, it's more damaging to lose at home vs. Purdue than it would be to lose at Rutgers (!). This is one of the reasons that the RPI isn't well-regarded by statistical-minded analysts. Michigan is currently 14-3 at home, 2-0 on neutral courts, and 1-6 on the road. Home wins and road losses are worth 0.6; neutral site wins/losses are 1.0; home losses and road wins are worth 1.4. So... that's an adjusted record of 11.8-7.8, or 0.6020.
Now, let's compare what happens. If we beat Purdue but lose to Rutgers, we add 0.6 to each column, for a record of 12.4-8.4, or 0.5962. On the other hand, if we lose to Purdue and beat Rutgers, we add 1.4 to each column, for a record of 13.2-9.2, or 0.5893. The adjusted winning percentage makes up 25% of the RPI, so Michigan would gain 0.0017 RPI points by losing to Rutgers (vs. Purdue), if you assume they were going to lose one or the other.
TL;DR: For teams that are over .500, the RPI punishes home losses more than it rewards road wins.
|1 week 1 day ago||Congratulations||
Congratulations, Seth. You win the internets.
|1 week 3 days ago||All your hyphen are belong to||
All your hyphen are belong to us.
|1 week 4 days ago||Timing||
You can only review to find the last player who touched the ball when there is less than two minutes to go in regulation, or in overtime.
|1 week 4 days ago||Agreed||
Yeah, I don't think he was on the court. You can't see it from that replay, but from the other angle in the broadcast, you can tell that Wagner fell back into IU's bench after making the shot, so he was hustling to get back on defense and Crean was in the way.
I like the way that Wagner started to help him up and then realized he didn't have time to do that. I'd imagine that Crean told him to go ahead and go play defense, but I'd hate to ascribe classy behavior to that particular coach.
|1 week 4 days ago||Honestly...||
Honestly, it was more like 7 on 6. For the first time in... forever?... Indiana doesn't seem to be getting home cooking at Assembly Hall. (for a non-Michigan example, check out the simultaneous block / charge double-foul in the Purdue @ IU game -- should have been a charge vs IU, expected a block vs Purdue because Assembly Hall, and got... both?)
Anyway, between the out-of-bounds jump ball, the missed goaltending in the GIF, at least one missed travel on Wagner (who never gets away with anything), and the fact that IU was whistled for more personal fouls than Michigan, I have no explanation for the game. It's unlike anything in my experience, and I'm just glad that the game was never in doubt so that I don't have to feel the win was tainted.
Cubs winning the World Series, a Cleveland championship, Michigan winning at IU... dogs and cats, living together? Mass hysteria?
|1 week 5 days ago||...||
Indiana didn't lose to a DIII team at home. They lost to IPFW, a division I team in the Summit League, on the road, in overtime.
Don't disparage Michigan's opponents. Leave that to Tom Izzo and Tom Crean.
As for Archie Miller -- I'm not sure what he's done to make you think he'd be a hot coaching commodity. Dayton's best wins this year are a sweep of Rhode Island; last year they had a neutral-site win over Iowa and won at Vandy -- but they lost to Chattanooga, St. Bonaventure, and Rhode Island at home, and at #266 La Salle. The year before that, they won a couple of tournament games (at home vs. Boise St. and vs. Providence), but lost at #125 UMass and at #218 Duquesne. He may be a perfectly fine coach, but I don't see any evidence that he's done any better at Dayton than anybody else would have.
|1 week 5 days ago||So, I actually went through||
So, I actually went through and computed the variance for the ORtg and DRtg for Michigan over the past five seasons, and then gave up because I didn't have anything obvious to use as the basis for comparison. In a vacuum, I agree; if Michigan is the more talented team, they can maximize the likelihood of a victory by minimizing the variance.
However, is that even an option? This "high variance" narrative seems to be based upon the idea that three-point shooting is erratic. Here are the three-point shooting percentages -- and ORtg -- for Michigan's losses:
The South Carolina game was definitely a poor offensive showing. The loss to Michigan State was below average. The others? This team's problem is not the offense. Michigan is 16-9. If they had held each opponent to less than 1.1 points per possession, they would be 21-4.
Now, admittedly, that's a tough standard -- even great defensive teams don't do that. For example, Louisville's national championship team (Burke got all ball!) gave up >1.1 points per possession three times: vs. Syracuse in the regular season and both Final Four games. This year's #1 DRtg team in KenPom, South Carolina, has done it twice so far: @ Kentucky in a loss, and vs. Georgia in a win. Still, I think the point is clear: this team's problems are on defense.
|1 week 5 days ago||...||
What makes you think that the OP has a U of M education? This isn't Staee; there are other reasons to root for Michigan than having matriculated from there.
Edit: And other reasons to post on this blog besides being a Michigan fan.
|1 week 5 days ago||I've never understood that...||
If I were a coach, and I saw on film that the opposing coach routinely stepped onto the court while the ball was in play, I'd instruct my players to run him over. Not hard, and not with any intent to injure, but run him over nonetheless. It'd be fairly hard for the officials not to give him a T if there was a live-ball, on-court collision.
I've never figured out why nobody does this.
|1 week 5 days ago||...||
|1 week 5 days ago||Good call||
Good call. Conveniently, KenPom has a measure for that too (added midway through last season) -- "Minutes Continuity." Essentially, it's the percentage of minutes used by the same player this season as last season. Again, Michigan performs well on this metric, because so much of the rotation is unchanged. Here are the Big Ten ranks:
This is yet another reason that people exepcted Michigan to have a better season than they have... so far.
|1 week 5 days ago||OK...||
FYI, here are the KenPom experience numbers for the Big Ten:
For the purposes of these rankings, a freshman has 0 years of experience, a sophomore 1, a junior 2, and a senior 3. This excludes the playing time for "benchwarmers" (anyone playing less than 10% of available minutes) -- their minutes are excluded from the calculation entirely, regardless of class.
Thus, at 2.05, Michigan averages a junior. (If you include Ibi and Teske in the calculation, they drop to 1.99; they're currently excluded). Donnal is classified as a senior for these calculations, but DJ Wilson is classified as a sophomore -- it looks like Ken is using the class data published by the schools.
Anyhow, by these metrics, Michigan has about 2/3 of a year more experience than the bulk of the Big Ten. How much of a difference that should really make is an exercise for the reader.
I agree that the seniors haven't performed up to expectations this year, with Walton the obvious exception. I think that's the problem. Your original question is "Why do people keep calling this team experienced?" My answer is that they are experienced, but they haven't necessarily profited from that experience to the degree that we would hope. Furthermore, the freshmen haven't been good enough to earn regular playing time until X broke out against MSU. And, yes, we are expecting more and more out of younger players as time goes on -- it's true in football too, but it's exacerbated in basketball by the number of transfers and early draft entries relative to the roster size. I think the most disappointing thing about this season, so far, is that Michigan has not been able to turn their experience advantage into consistent effort on the court. Perhaps that's now changing; certainly, the last two games have been much more intense than @Illinois or vs. Ohio State.
Still, there's plenty of time to make this season a memorable one. Go Blue!
|1 week 5 days ago||Actually...||
Actually, I don't think you can judge the decision to like Spike transfer until next season. The biggest reason not to offer Spike a fifth year was the expectation that playing time for Albrecht would come at the expense of Simpson. These last couple of games, where the light has come on for X? It's quite possible that it doesn't happen if Spike's still on the team. The real test, however, will be next season. If X is ready to be the primary point guard, Beilein probably did the right thing for the program by letting Spike walk. If he isn't, well... that calls a lot of things into question, including the Albrecht situation.
|1 week 5 days ago||Darius Morris...||
OK, so Darius Morris played two seasons, 2010 and 2011. In 2010, Michigan's adjusted offensive rating was 103.6 -- 103.6 points in 100 possessions vs. an average team -- good for 104th nationally. In 2011, they improved to 108.6, or 39th nationally.
Since Morris left, Michigan's AdjO and national rank:
The Beilein offense works. There's plenty to criticize about the defense, but you, and the rest of the Beilein detractors, look 20+ years out of date when you start complaining about the offense (get off my lawn!)
Michigan's offense is predicated around two things: ball protection and shooting. Yes, they take a lot of outside shots, but Michigan's two-point shooting is exceptional -- they're currently 20th in the country at 54.8% inside the arc. I understand that some people prefer a more physical style of play. Personally, I prefer a more effective style of play, and that's what John Beilein has brought. (BTW: the offenses better than Michigan so far this year: UCLA, Oklahoma St., Villanova, Gonzaga, Kansas, North Carolina, and West Virginia. I'd put only the latter two in the physical play category).
|1 week 5 days ago||Ehh...||
@ South Carolina would have been an even better time.
|1 week 5 days ago||DJ||
DJ Wilson is a redshirt sophomore. He only played four games his true freshman season before being shut down with an injury.
|1 week 5 days ago||Because this isn't 1985 anymore||
Michigan is #60 nationally, and #2 in the Big Ten (behind Wisconsin) in KenPom's experience stat, with 2.05 years of experience, weighted by playing time. Having two seniors each playing 30+ minutes per night is unusual in modern college basketball, especially among power conference teams. Here are all of the major college programs with an experience score of 2.00 or higher:
Simply put, Michigan is an experienced basketball team.
|1 week 6 days ago||...||
I think Mo Wagner just became my favorite Wolverine ever.
|1 week 6 days ago||Shooting Foul||
How was it a shooting foul on the reach-in against Walton, but the subsequent MAAR shot wasn't?
|2 weeks 3 days ago||CHAOSTEAM||
Indiana football: You learned how to play defense, then fired your coaching staff. You lost the belt.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I hereby proclaim Michigan basketball to the be rightful holder of the title CHAOSTEAM, with all of the rights and responsibilities associated thereto.
This team can beat anybody in the country, and this team can lose to anyone in the country. It's amazing.
|3 weeks 19 hours ago||...||
His family needs him. I'd say their claim trumps yours or mine.
I hope everything works out well for the young man and his family, and I hope we get to see him again in the winged helmet in the future.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||I see what you did there...||
I see what you did there...
|4 weeks 14 hours ago||...||
OK, fine, but the original message in the thread was pointing out that Indiana shot over 50% ffrom 3 for the game, and contending that was a bad result for Michigan. My reply is that they held IU to far fewer than their average number of 3s, which is a good result for Michigan.
I will admit my guilt on the imprecise wording, but I think hte meaning is clear: While you can defend against the 3, successful defense will show up in terms of the number of shots conceded, not the number of attempts made, nor even the shooting percentage.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||http://kenpom.com/blog/3point||
To wit: the defense has a very small effect upon the opponents' three-point shooting percentage. The Wisconsin game is a microcosm: Wisconsin hit a couple of 3-point shots with hands in their face while fading away -- a low-percentage shot, to be sure. Meanwhile, Mo Wagner, who is a 43% 3-point shooter -- second-best on the team among guys with more than ten attempts -- missed two wide-open 3s in a row.
An analysis based upon three-point percentage allowed would say that Wisconsin guarded the 3 better than Michigan did. Someone who watched those possessions would say the opposite.
What the studies do show is that you can have an effect on the number of 3s your opponents take -- intuitively, if you leave them wide-open, they'll take more threes -- but you're pretty much at their mercy when it comes to the percentage allowed. So, when you take a team like Indiana, who nomally takes 39.5% of their field goals from 3-point range, and you hold them to taking only 29.5% instead, you've done well, statistically, in the area you can control.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||3-point defense||
3-point defense -- statistically -- isn't a thing.. and two of those threes were to that end-of-the-bench guy in the last two minutes.
What a good defense can do is limit your opportunities from 3. IU only attempted 13 threes out of 44 field goal attempts, or 29.5%. They average 39.5%, so Michigan held them substantially under their average -- and, again, even more so when the game was in doubt. I saw many fewer occasions of Michigan players looking completely lost on defense than I'd seen earlier in the Big Ten conference season. Instead, they switched smartly on screens, played sensible help defense without giving up a ton of open looks, took charges out away from the basket, where it's easier to get the call, and harrassed the ball handler to the point where they forced IU into a calvacade of turnovers.
It wasn't a world-beating defensive performance, but it was a good one. Indiana's lower offensive efficiencies this year: 0.929 in the inexplicable loss at IPFW; 0.944 in a neutral-court loss to Louisville, and... 1.02 in a 19-point win vs Rutgers (??). That's not bad company.
Meanwhile, while we agree that IU's defense isn't great, their previous worst performacne was 1.20 ppp in their home loss to Nebraska. Michigan just dropped 1.54... or, just slightly better than IU's own excellent offense did in its best performance of the year, in December, at home, against the Hornets of Delaware State.
This game was, simply, an evisceration.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Agreed||
Plus, they kept IU off of the offensive glass -- and IU is sixth in the country in offensive rebound percentage. IU's 62.5% effective field goal percentage was certainly a concern, but they only rebounded five misses (25%). IU was very much one-and-done -- or none-and-done, with the extremely high number of turnovers (16 in a 59 possession game -- 27%).
If you can't stop the shots from falling, you have to reduce the number of shot attempts you concede, and Michigan did that tonight -- especially during the decisive stretch to open the second half.