Video & Analysis: Frank Kaminsky vs. Michigan

Video & Analysis: Frank Kaminsky vs. Michigan Comment Count

Ace February 18th, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Happy Fun Times Day at MGoBlog continues unabated. Before you get mad at me for putting this video together, please keep in mind that I've already punished myself by... putting this video together. Here are Frank Kaminsky's significant touches against Michigan, sorted by primary defender. It's just as brutal as you'd expect.

Kaminsky scored 25 points on 10/14 2-pt and 1/2 3-pt shooting with four offensive rebounds. He dominated regardless of the defender. That doesn't mean the defender didn't matter, however, at least when it came to forcing more difficult shots. While this video mostly speaks for itself, a little analysis of Michigan's post defenders in this game is warranted.

Jordan Morgan

Morgan started out well, forcing Kaminsky to pass out the post on his first touch despite having pretty solid position. It went downhill in a hurry. Kaminsky's quickness proved especially troublesome for Morgan; three times Kaminsky blew right past him after getting the ball on the perimeter and he committed a foul to prevent a fourth. The threat of Kaminsky's three-point shot exacerbated this issue, as his most successful drives came when Morgan overplayed the outside shot* or got caught flat-footed.

While Morgan forced tough shots on post touches, his size disadvantage and lack of explosive athleticism allowed Kaminsky to get clean looks at the hoop anyway. Morgan's strength is an asset in the post—Kaminsky had a tough time backing him down—but Kaminsky overcame it with his length, mobility, and skill.

The uncalled push-off on the final three-pointer is noted; it's also canceled out by the inexplicable brick when Morgan couldn't fight through traffic and gave up a wide open three-point look.

*[Often because he was late getting out to contest a potential three.]

Glenn Robinson III

This matchup choice confounded me, as John Beilein chose to put Robinson on Kaminsky when Nigel Hayes also took the floor for Wisconsin. My best justification for this is Beilein wanting to ensure Robinson, a better rebounder and defender at this stage than Zak Irvin, didn't get into foul trouble defending Hayes, who draws an astronomical 7.7 fouls per 40 minutes. I still don't get it, though, since Michigan wasn't doubling in the post and Kaminsky overpowered Robinson with ease.

Wisconsin immediately went after the mismatch in the post when Robinson manned up Kaminsky. Both post-ups resulted in baskets on great looks. On the boards, Kaminsky outreached Robinson for the ball when GRIII even bothered to box him out; twice GRIII didn't even manage to do that.

Jon Horford

I thought Horford acquitted himself well defensively, making Kaminsky work for good shots when he wasn't the victim of poor defense by his teammates. Or the officials. The first foul call (above), well...

Brian: I noticed that Horford got called for the wisconsin chest bump live

That's a tough call considering (1) Wisconsin does this all the time and (2) the officials let a lot of touchy fouls go in this game.

Horford then got victimized for a basket in which Kaminsky got a half-step advantage on him, then exploited that half-step with an uncalled off-arm hook that kept Horford from recovering. Horford, naturally, got called for a foul.


I'm not sure what to take from this other than knowing Michigan's interior defense isn't very good, especially against big men who can also stretch the floor. With Adreian Payne rounding his way into form, that doesn't bode well for Sunday. Will we see the Wolverines double down in the post more? Quite possibly, as John Beilein said this during his weekly radio show:

That isn't a failsafe solution, of course. Doubling in the post puts more pressure on Michigan's perimeter defenders, and they've been prone to blowing switches and assignments as-is. Wisconsin having Ben Brust and Josh Gasser on the floor—not to mention Sam Dekker on a hot shooting day—made it tough for U-M to commit any more defenders to Kaminsky. With MSU giving plenty of minutes to a lineup featuring Gary Harris, Kenny Kaminski, and Travis Trice—all 40% or better 3-point shooters—surrounding Payne, they face similar issues this weekend even if Keith Appling sits out.


It Is Bad To Be Down A Lot Early

It Is Bad To Be Down A Lot Early Comment Count

Brian February 17th, 2014 at 12:58 PM


2/16/2014 – Michigan 62, Wisconsin 75 – 18-7, 10-3 Big Ten


[Bryan Fuller]

Michigan was one bounce away from a Big Ten title last year and went to the Final Four. This year they're tied at the top of the Big Ten with Michigan State. And still there are multiple games per year that I am immediately sick about because Michigan gets down by one billion immediately.

Maybe they cut the deficit to a million and then eventually lose. Point stands. I don't think they've actually won a one billion point deficit game; the closest they've come is the most recent outing against Ohio State that reached a maximum deficit of ten. The four in the last two years:

  • Michigan goes down 29-8 in the first half at Ohio State, eventually ties game, loses 56-53.
  • Michigan goes down 31-15 in first half at MSU, rest of game proceeds like that.
  • Iowa leads 27-11 at Iowa, rest of game proceeds like that.
  • I dunno, pick a first-half point against Wisconsin: 14-4, 26-11, 34-16. Michigan narrows it to five before Wisconsin ends the game on a sealing run.

Does this happen to other very good basketball teams? I assume it must. There are two types of people: those who are suspicious of their own brains and those who assume they have no biases. I'm in the former group and therefore assume that other teams headed for Sweet 16 seeds regularly get their ass handed them in appalling fashion.

Let's just head over to Kenpom and…


I've got Kansas's game against Texas, wherein the Jayhawks ended up down 17 near the end of the first half and never really closed that deficit. Villanova will run screaming from the room if you so much as use a word that begins with C after their two outings against Creighton. And… and that's about it. I didn't check every single loss in the KP top 25, but I did do a lot of them and it does appear that getting smacked upside the head with a giant ham in the first 15 minutes is a notable rarity amongst teams that purport to be as good as Michigan does.

This is no fun. I can deal with losing to Arizona or even grumbling through that Indiana game much better than I can the series of increasingly agitated expletives followed by dismal silence that has resulted from these… things. Games they are not. Games are competitive contests of sporting intent. These are flayings, followed by an excruciating period of bleeding out.

The Ohio State one was okay, I guess. That was the first hamblast game and Michigan recovered from it to acquire a moral victory. (Tedious person about to let me know that he doesn't believe in moral victories: you're a fan, you certainly do, please stop parroting press conferences, both teams played hard.) The three since have been solid platforms of misery.

You can't turn them off because you remember that Ohio State game—it was a trap!—and you can't watch them without removing all emotion from your life, gazing dumbly ahead like a cow on a conveyor belt, bleating in directionless anguish every once in a while. The comeback trail is only satisfying in retrospect if the comeback is completed. Teasing contact and then letting go is just the cherry on top of the cow-conveyor-belt sundae.

I may have tortured that metaphor until it died. I have no regrets. It knew the risks, coming into this column after that game. It'll get an MGoState funeral; its wife, a jaunty comparison between Zak Irvin and a modern piece of kitchen technology, gets full benefits.

For my part, I'm spending the next week assembling a couch fort in the living room and testing out colanders for protective potential. I plan to peer out my viewport, Super Soaker in hand, until it feels safe to come out. If it feels safe to come out. I'm bringing a lot of soup.


Thanks, Increasingly Dangerous Nebraska™! Really did us a solid there, winning at the Breslin. Michigan retains its virtual one-game lead over the Spartans based largely on the fact that Michigan's next game is at home.

Is Nebraska headed for the bubble? Yeah, but probably the wrong side. They've got zero good nonconference wins and a bad loss versus UAB. I don't wins over OSU, Miinnesota, and @ MSU get you in with, say, an 18-12 record and 10-8 in conference. They'd have to either go 5-1 down the stretch (doable, but not probable: PSU, Purdue, @ Illinois, NW, @ Indiana, Wisconsin) or notch another big scalp in the BTT to get in.

But hey, that's quite a turnaround from last year, when Nebraska was dismal and senior-heavy. The Cornhuskers get everyone except Ray Gallegos back next year and will be projected to grab a bid.

Sound all available alarms. The Stauskas crisis is reaching peak levels. 11 points on 13 shot attempts, 2 assists, and 3 TOs lead to a single-game ORTG of 78 and, worse, is reflective of his past five or six games. Asking Stauskas to be more aggressive has just caused him to take a lot of bad shots. Sometimes they go in because Stauskas, but bad shots are bad shots no matter who takes them. Michigan really has to figure out something to combat the point guard gambit here. This is trouble.


At least this one was a tough runner from an angle. GRIII possessions not so much. [Bryan Fuller]

Why was the 6'6" guy on the 7-foot guy again? Michigan inexplicably singled GRIII up against Kaminsky so often that it became clear this was on purpose when Hayes was in the game. This was nuts. Kaminsky abused the much shorter Robinson for a series of easy buckets and four OREBs; Hayes just stood in front of Morgan/Horford and launched 15-footers. If switching those matchups ends up with Hayes posting GRIII, okay. That's going to work out better than Kaminsky. Even if you thought Kaminsky couldn't post up—no idea why that would be the case—after his first extremely easy bucket over GRIII it was time to put the biggest dude available on him.

Not like GRIII was much better against Dekker. Pro: he somehow acquired 5/8 from two in this game—seriously, look at the box score and you'll be like "wha?"

So, so passive. Michigan's disruption stats in this game were pathetic: 0 blocks, 0 steals, 2 Wisconsin turnovers. TWO. Yeah, yeah, HORSE, but that's so far out of bounds that you can't keep up. Wisconsin had 8 more FGAs and 3 more FTAs. The shooting wasn't that different; it was largely on shot advantage.

Michigan's defense has now farted down to 89th on Kenpom, which is 50 spots below last year. McGary only played 20 minutes a game; is that really the entire difference? I mean, I don't remember either Burke or Hardaway as the kind of players who made you think that they would be missed on the defensive end, Burkesteal excepted.

Irvin: nope. The Irvin giveth and the Irvin taketh away: 1/7 in this game. None were exceptional looks, but most looked plausible as he shot them. I guess in this game he was The Dutch Oven, because it took him a long time to get warmed up. Are you quitting this blog yet? Because of the Irvin stuff? I don't really blame you.

Also nope: Walton, 0/6 from the floor.

Caris! Caris jacked up some horrible-idea threes, which went in. Then he got some good looks, that went in. He was only 2/7 from two but with 6/6 FTAs on drives he was really 5/10 from there. He still dribbles around too much for my tastes but when Stauskas is in a funk he's picked Michigan up multiple times.

Credit to the bug man. Wisconsin nailed it down after getting blown up by Michigan the last time out. M did scrape over the 1 PPP mark at 1.03 mostly thanks to blazing FT shooting, 89%. But the whole tenor of the game was different. The wide open twos Wisconsin gave up in the first game were way less open. Michigan did get some, but more often those twos were at least semi-contested.

Meanwhile, Michigan didn't even attempt a three until they were down by a bunch. Getting up to 16 was kind of desperation.


Wisconsin 75, Michigan 62

Wisconsin 75, Michigan 62 Comment Count

Ace February 16th, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Caris LeVert's 25 points ultimately weren't enough [Bryan Fuller/MGoBlog]

Oh, it should've been, could've been worse than you would ever know.
Well, you told me about nowhere well it sounds like someplace I'd like to go.

You know it's not going well when the arena staff decides Modest Mouse's "Dashboard" is an appropriate song to play during halftime. With Michigan down 34-19 to Wisconsin at the break, however, the choice proved prescient.

If not for Caris LeVert's 17 second-half points, this game never would've been close, and even the final 13-point margin doesn't capture Wisconsin's dominance. The Badgers raced out to a 14-4 lead as Michigan's familiar defensive woes reared their ugly head, dominated the boards, and pushed the gap as wide as 18 points when U-M went 5:05 without hitting a field goal.

The deficit proved too much to overcome despite LeVert's best efforts. After the sophomore connected on a pair of three throws to cut Wisconsin's lead to three points with 6:16 remaining, Wisconsin center Frank Kaminsky answered with a post-up finish. Kaminsky proceeded to take over, hitting his next three shots—including an and-one and a stepback three—to give the Badgers an insurmountable 65-52 edge with just over two minutes left.

Michigan couldn't find an answer all afternoon for Kaminsky, who finished with 25 points (10/14 2-pt, 1/2 3-pt) and 11 rebounds (four offensive). He attacked Jordan Morgan and Jon Horford in the post, caught them flat-footed when he got the ball on the perimeter, and capped it off with that late triple.

While the Wolverines—namely LeVert—found their shot in the second half after going just 7/22 from the field in the first, Wisconsin's major edge in rebounding and turnovers proved to be the difference.

The Badgers coughed the ball up just twice; Michigan had seven turnovers in the first half alone. In a 59-possession slog, those mistakes proved quite costly, especially with Wisconsin generating lots of second-chance opportunities. The rebounding numbers would look much worse if Bo Ryan didn't play it conservative and start sending all five players back with a comfortable lead in the second half.

Wisconsin also prevented Michigan from getting the shots they wanted, especially in the first half. U-M only attempted 16 three-pointers, couldn't get to the rim, and had to settle for a series of long two-pointers. This showed up in the numbers. Nik Stauskas scored 11 points on 13 shot equivalents, going 0/2 from beyond the arc. Derrick Walton and Zak Irvin were a combined 1/13 from the field, the only make a meaningless late three from Irvin.

While Glenn Robinson finished with ten points on ten shots and the Morgan/Horford pairing hit 3/4 FGs, the open inside looks that Michigan generated in the first matchup just weren't there. Just five of Michigan's 20 made field goals were assisted; none of those came in the first half.

Dropping a winnable game at home is a big blow to Michigan's chances of winning the Big Ten title outright, but it's far too early to count them out, especially if Michigan State trips up in one of their games (Nebraska, @Purdue) between now and Sunday's in-state battle at Crisler.

Make no mistake, though: this was a blown opportunity, and the state of the defense isn't pretty. After ceding 1.28 points per trip to Wisconsin, Michigan ranks 10th in the Big Ten in defensive efficiency, 11th in eFG% against, and 9th in both turnovers forced and defensive rebounding. If there isn't improvement between now and the postseason, there won't be much madness in March for Michigan.


Preview: Wisconsin

Preview: Wisconsin Comment Count

Ace February 14th, 2014 at 3:14 PM


WHAT Michigan (18-6, 10-2 B1G) vs. Wisconsin (20-5, 7-5)
WHERE Crisler Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
WHEN 1 pm Eastern, Sunday
LINE Michigan -6 (KenPom)
TV CBS (PBP: Spero Dedes; Analyst: Bill Raftery)

Right: The Stauskas Stepback [Chris Smith/UMHoops]


After Michigan State's victory over Northwestern last night, the Wolverines and Spartans are once again deadlocked at the top of the Big Ten standings with 10-2 conference records. The in-state rivals are two games clear of Iowa, victors over Penn State on Saturday. MSU hosts Nebraska and travels to Purdue before heading to Crisler next Sunday; Michigan, meanwhile, will have an entire week to prepare for the Spartans after this game.

Given that Michigan State (@Michigan, Iowa, @OSU) and Iowa (Wisconsin, @Minnesota, @MSU) both have three very tough matchups left on their respective schedules, a victory on Sunday would give Michigan the inside track to the Big Ten title, and quite possibly an outright one. According to KenPom, Michigan is at least a 66% favorite in every one of their remaining games—they have a 19% chance of running the table. Win this and a 15-3 conference record isn't just distinctly possible, it's the expectation.

Finishing atop the conference wouldn't just put another banner in the Crisler rafters; according to the mock NCAA bracket put together by media members in Indianapolis this week, the B1G champion is set to get the most desirable two-seed spot in terms of both matchup (Wichita State is easily the weakest one-seed) and location (Indianapolis).


If not for Wisconsin scoring the first basket, Michigan would've led wire-to-wire in their first win in Madison since 1999. The Badgers managed to cut a 15-point second half deficit all the way down to one before Nik Stauskas drilled a stepback three-pointer over Nigel Hayes.

Stauskas was brilliant, leading all scorers with 23 points while adding in four assists; Caris LeVert (20 points), Glenn Robinson III (14 on 6/8 FG), and Jondan Morford (combined 12 points, 14 rebounds, 6/6 FG) also excelled. Michigan scored 1.16 points per trip, their best mark against Wisconsin since 2006.

The Michigan loss represented the second of what would be five losses in six games for the Badgers, though they've since rebounded with three straight wins (@Illinois, Michigan State, Minnesota).

First game preview. Recap. Brian's game column. OFAAT. Nik Stauskas feature w/ Wisconsin highlights.


Projected starters are in bold:

Pos. # Name Yr. Ht./Wt. %Min %Poss SIBMIHHAT
G 12 Traevon Jackson Jr. 6'2, 208 76.2 23.3 No
Not particularly efficient, but gets to the line and shoots well from beyond arc
G 1 Ben Brust Sr. 6'1 196 86.9 17.8 Always*
Very good outside shooter, mostly a catch-and-shoot guy, still hated
G 21 Josh Gasser Jr. 6'3, 190 83.4 12.8 Always*
Tiny usage, great shooter, high FT rate despite more 3PA than 2PA, still hated
F 15 Sam Dekker So. 6'7, 220 75.3 23.7 Kinda
Potential first-rounder, very efficient inside arc, few TOs, iffy outside shot
C 44 Frank Kaminsky Jr. 7'0, 234 64.8 23.2 Not at all
Very effective near basket or outside, decent rebounder and shot-blocker
F 15 Nigel Hayes Fr. 6'7, 250 44.7 25.5 Very
Solid scorer inside arc, foul magnet, poor FT shooter, active defender
G 24 Bronson Koenig Fr. 6'3, 190 35.9 13.2 Yes
Barely played in first matchup, midrange shots falling, three-pointers not
F 13 Duje Dukan Jr. 6'9, 220 20.8 17.6 Kinda
Stretch-four type seeing very few minutes in B1G play

As is their norm, Wisconsin keeps a short bench (339th nationally in bench minutes); with Dukan barely getting any run in conference play, this is a seven-man rotation.


Point guard Traevon Jackson doesn't excel in any one area and has struggled to finish inside the arc (42.4% 2-pt), but he's a well-rounded player who can distribute the ball, knock down three-pointers (37.9%), and get to the line frequently. To combat his ability to get to the rim, Michigan used Caris LeVert to defend him in the first matchup; this worked out well—Jackson finished with 7 points on 12 shot equivalents while making just one trip to the charity stripe.

Noted/hated gunners Ben Brust and Josh Gasser round out the starting backcourt. Aside from Brust's higher usage and Gasser's higher FT rate, they're extremely similar players. Brust shoots 39.6% from three while leading the Big Ten in attempts; Gasser shoots 42.3% from beyond the arc, where he takes more than half his shots. Both are exceptional free-throw shooters and middling finishers inside the arc. Meanwhile, their lack of size is something Michigan can take advantage of on the other end of the floor—Stauskas worked Gasser off the pick-and-roll in the first game and LeVert was able to shoot right over Brust.

Athletic wing Sam Dekker takes the highest percentage of the team's shots, though his jumper has often failed him in Big Ten play—he's shooting 28.6% from beyond the arc in conference. He's at his best when he's able to attack the rim off the dribble; he was 5/10 on two-pointers in the first game, mostly generating those shots near the rim, and 0/3 on three-pointers. For a player who relies on driving as much as Dekker does, he takes care of the basketball very well.

Frank Kaminsky is a stretch four in a center's body, which has its positives and negatives. He's a very adept outside shooter (40.7% 3-pt) who can also go to work on the block (71.2% on shots at the rim, per hoop-math) and knock down midrange jumpers (42.9%); all these shots are pretty impossible to block. His rebounding numbers are good but not great, which hurts this small Wisconsin team, and considering his size he's not the most imposing interior defender, something Brian mentioned as a big factor in Michigan's previous triumph:

There is something wonky about Wisconsin's defense this year that was not the case last year. That is Wisconsin trading Jared Berggren, Ryan Evans, and Neverending Ginger Assassin…


…for Frank Kaminski, Sam Dekker, and a 6'3" guard. Their ability to contest the jumpers their defense is designed to provide has been seriously compromised by their lack of size. Compounding issues: while Kaminski is taller than Berggren he's nowhere near Berggren's class as an intimidator.

Wisconsin packs the three-point line and plays a soft hedge against the pick-and-roll, theoretically forcing opponents to attempt difficult pull-up twos. This year, however, those shots have been a little easier, and the dropoff in interior defense has also led to opponents shooting unusually well against the Badgers from the outside due to drive-and-kick opportunities when the defense collapses.

The backup of real significance is freshman Nigel Hayes, whose FT rate of 103.4 (yes, he's attempted more FTs than FGs) would be third nationally and miles ahead of any B1G player if he got enough minutes; he's averaging just under 11 points per game in conference even though he hits just 59.5% of his free throws. Hayes has a wide, solid frame for a 6'7 guy, which allows him to split his minutes evenly between center and power forward, though his rebounding numbers aren't up to snuff for a big man. He utilizes a long wingspan to block his fair share of shots and generate a surprising number of steals, though he's also foul-prone (5.6 FC/40).

Fellow freshman Bronson Koenig gets sporadic minutes at guard and gets very little usage; he mostly functions as a spot-up shooter, though he's not doing well in that role (4/21 3-pt in B1G play).


From the first preview:

Wisconsin jumped out to a school-record 16-0 start before Tuesday's loss at Assembly Hall, and they didn't do it against the proverbial tray of cupcakes: those 16 wins include nine KenPom top-100 teams, four of which rank in the top 25 (Florida, St. Louis, Virginia, and Iowa). Their most impressive win is probably the 48-38 suffocation of #17 Virginia in the B1G/ACC Challenge that set the game of basketball back a good half-century.

Since then victories at the Kohl Center have lost some of their luster, as Northwestern(!) and Ohio State both triumphed there; the Badgers also lost by 13 at Minnesota during their early Big Ten skid. They've righted the ship with a road win at Illinois and home victories over MSU and Minnesota in their last three games. That Minnesota win came on Thursday night, so this is a pretty quick turnaround for the Badgers.


Top photo: Mike McGinnis/Getty | Bottom photo: Chris Smith/UMHoops

Both of these teams are heavily reliant on outside shooting to generate points, even though they go about generating those shots in wildly different ways; the gap in offensive efficiencies between the two can be almost entirely explained by Michigan's edge in three-point shooting (40.2% in Big Ten play to Wisconsin's 34.2%). Other similarities include subpar rebounding, few turnovers on either end, and remarkable foul avoidance on defense.

One area that could play to Michigan's advantage is Wisconsin's dependence on producing points at the free-throw line. The Badgers are second in the conference in FTA/FGA and score 25.4% of their points at the line, also second in the Big Ten. The Wolverines, on the other hand, have the second-lowest FTA/FGA allowed and give up the fewest percentage of points in the conference at the line—just 17.2%. Michigan matched Wisconsin in FTA in the first game; if they're able to do that again—and that feat should be easier at home—odds of a victory are pretty good.


Stick to shooters. Wisconsin's best chance at a victory is to generate a gap in three-point attempts and take advantage; Michigan was a little fortunate in the first game to match the Badgers's seven triples despite five fewer attempts. The bigs have to be very disciplined against Kaminsky, especially when deciding when to help on attacking guards; Jon Horford nearly gave up a huge three in the first game when he unnecessarily sunk into the paint. Meanwhile, the guards have to stick to Brust and Gasser like glue and run them off the line if necessary—two-point attempts from them, even open ones, are more optimal for Michigan than half-decent looks from beyond the arc.

Attack the soft middle. Michigan shot 55% on twos in the first game despite LeVert and Stauskas both missing a number of open pull-up attempts from the free-throw area. The gameplan probably won't deviate much from the first time around—lots of pick-and-rolls to generate those interior looks while keeping an eye out for the occasional open shooter when the defense collapses. 

Limit transition chances. Wisconsin doesn't run much (surprise!), generating just 15% of their shots in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock. When they run out, however, they're quite effective: the Badgers boast a 61.5 eFG% in transition compared to 51.6% in non-transition opportunities. Taking care of the basketball shouldn't be a huge issue—one exception: watch for post passes off of screens, as Wisconsin's bigs often sink into those and come up with steals—so this is all about hustling back after missed shots, something that Michigan has struggled with all year.


Michigan by 6


UMHoops preview. Maize n Brew preview. Dylan breaks down Wisconsin's ball-screen defense. UMHoops draft stock watch—Goodman's mock looks pretty crazy to me, so take some of this with a grain of salt.

Mark Donnal, redshirting stretch four type, is capable of doing this:

Favorite Instagram comment: "There's no way your white."

Grantland feature on Trey Burke and Jared Sullinger. Luke Winn puts Michigan at #8 in his power rankings, looks at past teams with similar gaps between offensive and defensive efficiency (make sure to read the Duke section right above Michigan for context). If you're anything like me, you'll enjoy this SBNation multi-article feature on the history of the dunk contest.

*Yes, this goes against the general principle behind SIBMIHHAT, but some wounds take a long time to heal.