Maryland 66, Michigan 56
File photo [Barron]
Yes, we have to talk about it.
John Beilein is a great coach. His tenure at Michigan has left no doubt. Even great coaches, however, have their downsides. Beilein's rigidity with his foul policy qualifies, and—along with a perplexing insistence on sticking with the 1-3-1 while Maryland rained in second-half threes—it cost Michigan a shot at this game.
Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman picked up his second foul with 12:27 to go in the first half; the score was tied at nine. Zak Irvin committed his second with 6:55 to play in the half; Michigan held a 19-18 lead. Beilein went with a lineup that included walk-ons Andrew Dakich and Sean Lonergan, and didn't re-insert Rahk or Irvin until the second half.
Maryland entered halftime up 30-21 after the Wolverines scored on just one of their ten possessions after Irvin hit the bench. Using KenPom's win probability calculator, which factors in that Maryland entered the game with an 81% chance at victory, the Terrapins' win probability jumped from 78.0% to 93.3% during that span.
Although Michigan got within three during the second half, Maryland pulled away each time the Wolverines drew near, usually with an open corner three against the ineffective 1-3-1 zone. The ten-point swing with Rahk and Irvin on the bench in the first half held up as the final margin of victory.
Abdur-Rahkman finished with seven points on seven shots, seven rebounds, two assists, and three fouls in 28 minutes. Irvin had 15 points on 14 shots, three rebounds, three assists, and just the two fouls in 31. Lonergan had no points, two rebounds, and a foul in 11 minutes. Dakich had a three-pointer blocked in his three minutes.
It's not fair to Beilein to only point out the negatives. For the second consecutive game, Kam Chatman looked like a different player, scoring seven points on 3/5 shooting. Spike Albrecht tied for the team lead with 15 points. Irvin displayed a level of aggressiveness, ballhandling, and court vision that he didn't possess earlier in his career.
Beilein is coaching these guys up, and we'll undoubtedly be singing his praises again soon. Today, however, he wasn't close to his best.
That's a ridiculous argument. All points are created equal, no matter when they're scored. If you give up a big run early in the game, you're stuck playing from behind. If you don't, you have a chance to take and build on a lead, that way when the opposing team goes on a run late in the game you aren't stuck having to catch up. Minutes in the 1st half are just as important as minutes in the 2nd half, which is why it's asinine that Beilein insists on benching guys like MAAR and Irvin, 2 of our most important players, for 8-10 minutes at a time in favor of a couple of walk ons who shouldn't be playin, especially since they have yet to come close to fouling out at any point this year.
I agree with MGOBender, and I also coach basketball for a very successful high school program in PA, all points and minutes are equal only if you don't account for home court, momentum, player's energy, and time to adjust to the game as it is happening.
It is clear that if you pick up 2 fouls in the first half you go to the bench. Just as all of us know this, the players know this. They need to either play better defense (not fouling) or make smarter decisions to not foul BECAUSE of the depth concerns.
The depth concerns aren't an excuse to leave them on the floor. It is easier to "steal" minutes with role/bench players in the first half then it would be the final 5 minutes of a conference road game.
February 28th, 2015 at 6:41 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 28th, 2015 at 7:55 PM ^
February 28th, 2015 at 9:39 PM ^
The foul called on MAAR was a joke. Beilein could have cried about it after the game, but when asked he kind of just brushed it aside because he knows it was a joke of a call.
The first half reffing was comical that game. No surprise once the refs let us play that we continued to pull even and ahead.
The refs did us in that day with a horrible call in favor of MSU.
February 28th, 2015 at 6:05 PM ^
With a minute to go we didn't foul. Then they foul Spike to get their seniors an ovation. Would leaving Spike in and fouling their scrubs with 30 seconds left be a bush league move? Do you let them enjoy senior day or try to see if they miss a FT and we get hot from downtown?
February 28th, 2015 at 9:52 PM ^
I thought about that too, but maybe Beilein wanted to just get out of there and get back home. I don't know, but now that you present that situation, it makes me feel like fouling the scrubs could have lead to a bunch of missed FTs. I just think because of our no depth, everyone is gassed by the end so it limits us from hitting a barrage of 3s at the end. We missed a ton of open 3s to begin with, maybe Beilein just said fuck it, lets go home.
With our luck, the scrubs would have made all their FTs. Personally I'd rather not let them get the glory of getting into the scorebook versus us.
February 28th, 2015 at 7:34 PM ^
February 28th, 2015 at 7:55 PM ^
I like this team. Beilein has the misfits within 3 plays down the stretch on the road in leauge play. Taking teams to OT and squeezing out W's. Not good at all against the elites but I think I'll love this team next year.
February 28th, 2015 at 8:30 PM ^
February 28th, 2015 at 11:50 PM ^
Benching guys with two fouls works if and only if you have backups that can keep the game close. Michigan doesn't. You can't win the game in the first half but you can definitely lose it. And we have, multiple times, while one or two of our best five sits on the sideline.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the final 10 minutes of a game are more important than the first 10?
Are the final 10 minutes of sex more important than the first 10?
Of course they are more important.
It's easier to steal minutes in the first half with role/bench players than it is at the end of the game.
And anyway I don't think "sit a guy with two fouls" is always, or even usually, bad. The problem I, and apparently the blog owners, have is the rigidity of the policy. The context of the fouls should matter. So should the game scenario. Honestly I think the way this went down, MAAR should have sat for a few after his second foul, but when it became obvious that we were getting whipped without him on the floor, sending him out for the last five minutes or so would have been worth the risk. But Beilein apparently won't even consider that, which seems needlessly crippling.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 28th, 2015 at 9:13 PM ^
No one wants to hear it but the fact that they were within 3 in the seond half completely vindicates the strategy. They were undermanned and on the road. Keep it close as long as you can and try to pull it out.
The game was there for the taking. In fact, we had multiple stops on defense and followed them with no points. You could sense the momentum shifting. You have to take advantage. Missed layups by Doyle and some missed wide open 3s were killer. Maryland made the open 3s.
If we make those 3s, we probably win. In those must have spots, we missed our 3s and Maryland made them.
My Terps were certainly spent from the Wisconsin game and a very hard practice Turge put them through. I've appreciated the discussion here of the foul policy. All I can say is to confirm from a Maryland fan perspective that it may have been worthy of the "rare exception" that has been mentioned. Perhaps the only postseason that hung in the balance was the NIT and that just doesn't make the grade for Beilein to make an exception.
No it actually doesn't. The fact that they were within 3 in the 2nd half means that they could've actually been leading in the 2nd half if they hadn't spent an extended period of time in the first half with Dakich and Lonergan on the floor.
What's the cutoff then? 3 fouls? 4 fouls? Until you foul out. It's possible under your theory we wouldnt have had them for the 2h at all.
This is definitely part of it. There's a rule that if you foul twice in the first half you sit, and I think it's a good rule.
I also however think it's a good strategy and don't under stand the negative fixation on it. If you have to play Dakich and Lonergan at some point I'd rather it be in the first half, as long as the game is within reach.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
OK, back to zero - I know I'll get "negged" for this:
We really weren't all that great pre-injuries to Levert & Walton. Too much attrition. Surprisingly, the loss that hurt perhaps the most was Horford transferring!
OFC, Stauskas would be welcome, as would Robinson and McGary.
An idle question: Beilien sends a whole lot of his players to the League - why doesn't he get recruits like Calipari does?
discussed a lot in other threads but no good answer. If I were a kid and knew I was going to get a lot of playing time ( rather than sitting on the bench at another team ) at UM....but I guess no 4 star ever thinks he will sit .
And he looks really good doing it. I really hope this kid becomes a player next year
We got shredded in man and the one-three-one.
While you disagree with the strategy, Beilein has ALWAYS pulled a player with two fouls in the first half.....as do the vast majority of D I hoops coaches. Seems like a bit of piling on to continue to bring it up. Our lack of depth is most of the reason for the loss...not his two foul policy.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
2016 should be a good year.
Two things...
Beilein is not dumb. He knows the only shot Michigan has to get to the tournament is the B1G Tourney. If I'm a coach, I'd be using these games as glorified practices. Practice things you may need later, etc... The 1-3-1 can be effective, and playing it when man to man was working seemed dumb, unless you're using it to teach the kids how to run it during a game. If this was a game Michigan had to have to get into the tourney, or had to have to make an impact on their season, I'd be frustrated with it. It wasn't, so I'm not.
As for the 2 fouls thing, there's a remedy for that. Don't commit 2 fouls.
The problem with the 2 foul pulling is that there is zero viable bench options and this team has the slimmest of margins to pull victories out, especially on the road against solid opponents. Dakich and Lonergan provide you zero, at no fault of their own, they are walk ons for a reason. When either is on the court, the Wolverines are playing with an effective zero usage player at offense (5 points in 100+ Big Ten minutes combined) and someone to attack on defense. This has repeatedly burnt the team over and over again.
It would be a little be more acceptable to me if Beilein was able to figure out a way to get Chatman, Donnel, Doyle and Biefieldt more PT but it seems like we are incapable of playing with two bigs.
On the 1-3-1, the open threes were in large part due to Trimbles ability to dribble out of every trap. It seemed like a dozen times that he got around a trap or a strong hedge and resulted in short bursts of 5 on 3 basketball.
With all that being said, the team puts up a fight most outings and games are entertaining despite losing 3 guys to the NBA, a Senior Transfer and the 2 best players on the current roster. It could be a lot worse.
Seemed to me that the 1-3-1 looked better in this game than in any other except I think it was Illinois? We lost this game because we couldnt buy a three and they couldnt miss a three. Our looks were just as good as theirs.
Comments