Marginally Contested Comment Count

Brian

2/2/2013 – Michigan 73, Indiana 81 – 20-2, 7-2 Big Ten

Jordan Hulls Michigan v Indiana at7WYoLFN2Xl[1]hi-res-158576668_display_image[1]

Midway through the second half, Michigan popped into a 1-3-1 zone for a possession. I did not like this. I immediately thought "you can't run this defense with Jordan Hulls on the floor," and Indiana duly tossed the ball around the perimeter until Hulls was presented with an open three-pointer. He knocked it down. The 1-3-1 did not reappear.

Hulls didn't do much other than that. Unfortunately for Michigan, two of the other things he did were bury two more open threes; he missed only once. This is what you expect from Jordan Hulls, and it's why he's out there trying to check dudes a half-foot taller than him on defense.

To beat a team with a guy who shoots like that playing next to a sticky-fingered nightmare of a defender, the man Hulls is checking has to at least keep pace with the guy. Nik Stauskas didn't. He, too, is the sort of player that sends you to your toes when he's left wide open in transition, the sort of shooter that can create a buzz in an arena before the ball has even left his hand. He, too, had four good looks from three before the game had been decided. He missed all of them. (Hulls fouled him on a fifth.) The fourth miss was incredible, deflating, infuriating. This is not what is expected.

In a game where just about everything else did go as expected, that seems like the difference between a rock-'em-sock-'em affair ending at the buzzer and the marginally exciting contest that instead unfolded: Michigan's best shooter did not hit when presented with excellent looks.

And they were excellent. I'm not sure if Michigan came out with a concerted plan to emphasize the Hulls-Stauskas matchup or if Stauskas improvising based on his belief that Hulls couldn't check him; either way Michigan came out of the gate attacking that guy, and for naught. Stauskas drove for marginally-contested layups, and missed. He was found for marginally- or un-contested threes and missed. Michigan launched itself into desperation mode with two minutes left down nine, down exactly the same number of points Hulls had tossed in from behind the arc and Stauskas hadn't.

This is not to pile on Stauskas, who played about as well as he could up until the moment he let a shot go. This was not the Ohio State game, when he could not move towards the basket and found himself hacked out of the offense, reduced to jacking up deep, contested threes out of frustration.

When Stauskas made contact with Hulls he was largely quieted—along with the zone three two of his other looks came in transition. Stauskas didn't turn the ball over and had a couple assists. I can't recall any frustration shots launched. Afterwards, Beilein revealed Stauskas had missed practice the day before with the flu. Independent random trials can be a bitch even when you're healthy.

But there it is. While Glenn Robinson sputtered to two points and contributed little else in 40 minutes, his presence in the game always feels light. He largely cleans up other people's misses or throws down their assists. His absence or presence is something felt less viscerally than thinking TAKE THAT at maximum brain volume and seeing something betray Nik Stauskas's swag.

So it goes. Sometimes the damn thing won't go in the basket. The only thing to do is keep shooting.

Bullets

Protip: stop falling behind by lots in tough road games. Against OSU, Michigan's offense came out discombobulated and staked the opponent to a 21-point lead. In this one, Michigan's defense couldn't make a rotation or stop the ball in the first ten minutes and staked the opponent to a 15-point lead.

Protip: once you have fallen behind by lots in a tough road game and come storming back, DO NOT TIE THE GAME. When this happened in Columbus Michigan started jacking up bad shots and was on the wrong end of a decisive 6-0 run. In Bloomington they managed to tie the game just a few minutes into the second half, and then suffered an 11-0 run.

Clearly a mandate must go out indicating that it's threes only if you have fallen behind by lots only to claw back and find yourself down two in a tough road game. No more ties. No more.

Protip: just predict what Kenpom predicts. Twice this year arrogant predictor guys at this very website have arrogantly deviated from the Great Book Of Kenpom and predicted road victories, first myself for the OSU game and then Ace for Saturday. Kenpom was off by a total of three points in these games. Yea, and it was wroth.

Halftime adjustments check: no. Michigan clawed back to even after five minutes, but then suffered the aforementioned run.

628x471[1]The Morgan question. Was his absence a major problem? The two minutes on a gimpy ankle he got seems to indicate the answer is yes, as does Indiana shooting 59% from 2. McGary's box score says no: 5/7 from the floor, 3 OREB, 4 DREB, an assist, 0 TO, two blocks, two steals, and a Wes Unseld hockey assist not recorded. Horford added a couple buckets, blocks and turnovers in ten minutes.

In the aftermath I've seen various folk complain about McGary overhelping and thus setting up Cody Zeller's three tip dunks, but if Oladipo is screaming at the basket that seems McGary has a bad choice either way. By helping McGary forced tougher shots and misses on those, at least. If he's not there and Oladipo throws down a rim-rattling dunk, um… well, that's not good either. It seems like the problem there is on the initial drive and McGary is picking the lesser of two evils.

Because this is an attempt to quantify the defensive prowess of an individual player, we of course have wildly differing metrics here. Some low-sample-size Synergy data from UMHoops suggests that Morgan is by far the better defender. That is in direct conflict with some low-sample-size data Ace assembled that suggests Michigan is a crap-ton better with McGary on the floor.

I don't know, man. Keep "road game at Indiana" in perspective here: despite giving up 1.17 PPP, Michigan's defensive ranking on Kenpom actually moved up slightly after the game. If Indiana shot too well from two they also got up far fewer shots than Michigan thanks in large part to McGary, and without the intentional fouls at the end of the game that PPP rate drops to 1.10. It's complicated.

One spot at which Morgan may have helped: the four. Michigan hasn't taken Glenn Robinson off the floor since Morgan got hurt, and in this game he wasn't doing anything to justify 40 minutes. Morgan would have brought extra rebounding and been better able to hold up against Christian Watford on the block; Robinson would probably have been more effective if he knew he was going to get some rest here and there.

Speaking of the overhelping bit. I think we can put the Tim Hardaway Jr lockdown defender meme to rest. Oladipo roared into the paint with frequency against him, hitting 5/9 from two and IIRC having two of those misses thundered back into the basket by Zeller since he'd drawn two guys.

Hardaway's better than last year; in no way, shape, or form does he approach the level of an impact perimeter defender like, say, that Oladipo guy.

Hardaway was an effective shooter in this one, largely when Oladipo switched off onto Burke.

Oblig. Burke check. Hoo boy he put up a lot of shots: 24 in total. We should remove the rushed heaves at the end of the game to get a better picture of what he did when quality was more important than quantity. This slices out four 3PA, one of which went down, and two generous assists on similarly rushed heaves by Hardaway and Stauskas.

Those excised, Burke:

  • 5/12 from 2
  • 3/8 from 3
  • 3/4 from the line
  • 6 A, 3 TO, 2 steals, 2 OREB(!)
  • 22 points on 20 shots

Burke was tasked with a good number of Oh God Oh Jesus Oh God late-clock possessions as Indiana's defense came to play; he had difficulty with Oladipo, as you might expect. His numbers would have been less extreme and likely less inefficient if Stauskas had been healthy and accurate. As it was more and more of the offense devolved onto him.

He carried Michigan when they had to be carried. To exceed a point per shot against a top-tier defense while sucking up 40% of Michigan's possessions is remarkable.

Oblig. ref check. Fouls were even before Michigan went into game extension mode. There was a 15 to 7 FTA disparity for Indiana that seems mostly attributable to random chance. Two goofy calls stood out: the Oladipo continuation bucket and a blocking foul assigned to Hardaway that was a textbook charge—one, in fact, that Hardaway repeated moments later, getting the call.

Rebounding check. Michigan lost the battle on the boards thanks in no small part to those Zeller slams. It was close—29% to 34%—though, far less of a factor than IU doubling up Michigan when it came to turnovers.

The bright side! This may put a damper on GRIII to NBA worries?

"Cumong man" of the game. Indiana hit 88% of their free throws and didn't miss once in their last 14 tries. This is not conducive to exciting finish, Indiana. I am dissapoint.

The oddity of having a really good basketball team. You get punished by having Dick Vitale assigned to your games. I've always experienced him as an annoying presence on Duke broadcasts I'm not going to watch more than a few minutes of; this year I've finally been exposed to 40 minutes of the guy repeatedly.

I am not enjoying this experience. Take it away, Wikipedia:

He is known for catchphrases such as "baby"

The worst part is that when Vitale finally retires—he's 73—the ESPN executives who have not ordered him to do middle school games at 3 AM on ESPN3 will slide a howler monkey into his place and hope no one notices.

I wonder how Duke fans must feel about the guy. Sure, he's basically an extension of your university but even when he's yelling inanities in favor of your team, they are still inanities detracting from the important thing you are trying to pay attention to. And he is omnipresent. I don't think I could deal, man. We should have asked Jamiemac—who admitted no rooting interest in Saturday's game!—about that when we were quizzing him about the Yankees' chances this year in the podcast.

Anyway, in most other sports ascending to the big time level is a reward. Gary Thorne does the NCAA hockey tournament, and Sean McDonough will do your college football games. People bag on Musberger but I like him, and there's no comparison between Vitale and Herbstreit. Big NBA games get you Marv Albert.

I guess Tim McCarver and Jim Nantz do loom, but what this is all about is WHERE'S GUS JOHNSON, STRING?

1345003512868[1]

HUH? WHERE IS GUS? STRING!

It's strange to me that I love Raftery and Gus Johnson so much and find Vitale so detestable. All three bring buckets of enthusiasm and get criticized for it by haters. I am only in that group for the last guy. Maybe it's because "baby" is not a catch phrase, it is a useless appendage, where as "onions" is delightful and Gus Johnson makes lip-curling noises.

Does anyone like Vitale? Stand and be heard. I want to know if he appeals to anyone. We should do announcer approval ratings.

Comments

ish

February 4th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^

the difference between vitale and gus johnson (among the many, actually) is that vitale says the same stale things over and over, whereas johnson simply reflects the actual excitement that's happening on the floor and is unique to the game he's covering.  i think that's the primary reason he's so good. 

i disagree with the assessment that GRIII's lack of production was a smaller factor in the loss than stauskas'.  quiet points count for the same amount as loud points.  not getting any production out of a guy who averages 12 points a game is huge.

indiana didn't impress me that much.  when we get them at home, morgan will be a full strength, stauskas won't be sick and GRIII will be that much more experienced.  we should win that game.

Jonesy

February 4th, 2013 at 7:09 PM ^

I don't know how you can be unimpressed with Indiana after that game.  I felt like while we might pull out a win with a lot of luck and time simply running out when we peaked, that we were never really in the game.  Most of the time they had 4 40+% 3 point shooters on the floor and an agile 7 footer causing havoc in the middle.  Add to that that two of those shooters are freak athletes and ones one of the best defenders in the nation and thats a really, really good team.  Overall I think theyre a slightly better team than we are.  I also didnt notice anything different about GRIII's game than usual.  All he ever does is stand around, make some cuts, and throw down some dunks or knock down some threes that are wholly created by someone else.  While he is great at the dunking and pretty good at the threes he can't create anything on his own and is simply the beneficiary of someone elses actions.  I wonder what % of his shots are assisted, I'd have to think well over 90%.

Everyone Murders

February 4th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^

I mentioned this two seasons ago but I used to dislike Vitale but am now a fan by virtue of meeting him while working at an Ann Arbor restaurant. 

I met Dick Vitale while I was working at a restaurant about 20 years ago, and he was very friendly and engaging. I mentioned something about him being in town for the Michigan game, and he invited me to sit and chat with him about Michigan basketball. We talked for about ten minutes (I'm hardly a basketball expert, but had some opinions about the players), and he was great fun to chat with. He didn't act obnoxious at all - just ate his meal, chatted with a few curious onlookers, and was on his way. Maybe he's changed over the years, but my impression then is that the over-the-top enthusiasm is genuine rather than a schtick.

I entirely understand why his schtick grates, but I was shocked that it doesn't seem to be a schtick at all - he's just that way.  He was really animated, and excited to hear a student's opinion of the team.  One of the most enthusiastic guys I've ever met, in fact.  I still much prefer Raftery, but the fact that Vitale was the same way in real life as on TV moved the needle for me.

 

 

 

stephenrjking

February 4th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^

10-12 years ago I was listening to WTKA's morning show on my way to work. Vitale, who was traveling from Metro to East Lansing to call a game at MSU, called into the show as "Richard and Sarasota." He started talking and of course everyone realized who he was. However, he offered some reasonable discussion and analysis over a solid 5-minute phone call, with a brief promo for his website at the end. It wasn't stupid, over-the-top, or mindless--he spent five minutes talking sports that Michigan fans were interested in (I think it was still football season and he talked Michigan). 

It was awesome, and I think a nice thing to do for a relatively small radio program. 

Everyone Murders

February 4th, 2013 at 1:10 PM ^

Part of the reason that I've gotten past an ipecac reaction to "Diaper Dandies" and that sort of aural sandpaper is that the man (at least a long while back) was a very nice guy. 

Some celebrities and athletes send visual cues that they don't want to be bothered, and most people leave them alone as it's unfair to expect a celebrity to be "on" all the time.  I think it's wise to respect their privacy in those instances.

Vitale, though, was the opposite.  He saw that I recognized him, and clearly wanted to talk basketball (knowing full well that it was a thrill for me).  Having seen a few other celebrities and athletes act like total jackasses in those situations, it gave me a new appreciation for Vitale.  He was not merely polite, he was gregarious and engaging.

I still cringe at the "baby" and "Diaper Dandy" exultations though. 

umjgheitma

February 4th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^

I do not like Vitale. I think his appeal stems from the different appraoch to announcing he made when ESPN was coming to form, similar to Chris Berman. Reminds me of the Dennis Leary MTV commercials that afterward had marketing people going "we want to take an 'In you face' approach" that became popular. However, the appeal of Vitale peaked over a decade ago and now is to the level of that frying pan with some leftover butter you forgot you left the burner underneath it on for too long and is now a burnt, greasy unedible mess that is going to stick for a long time or until you throw away the pan. 

Spontaneous Co…

February 4th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^

to me.  I don't mind Dickie V when he is genuinely excited and un-rehearsed.  Take, for example, the Oladipo cross over on Hardaway that resulted in the monster jam.  That "Are you serious??"  from Dickie was genuine and captured what I was thinking.  But much of his material now seems rehearsed, as though he needs to live up to his own larger than life persona.  Gus and Raft don't have that.

It also says something that I can immediatley make my wife laugh hysterically by saying, "HA HAAAA" in my Gus voice or "Ohh, a little lingerie on the deck" but when I say, "That's awesome baby with a capital A"  she thinks I am super annoying.

duelThreat

February 4th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^

I like Dick Vitale, if only because he has a connection to Detroit between the Pistons and UDM.  Also, it's a bonus anytime I watch a broadcast and it's not Joe Buck speaking.

Needs

February 4th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^

He definitely nailed him, but he was turning upcourt and I don't think he knew Hulls was there.

The refs definitely looked at it in the timeout because they took a long time looking at the film when the call on the 2 or 3 was pretty clear. If it was something they didn't see during the game, I'd think there might be the possibility for a suspension, but the refs' game report will likely contain an explanation of what they reviewed and why they decided the way they did. 

The Squid

February 4th, 2013 at 1:00 PM ^

I'm not a fan of Rafftery's schtick either, but he at least has some honest-to-god basketball smarts and can actually say informative things that add to my appreciation of the game. Vitale's logorrhea is comprised of almost zero substance beyond the blindingly obvious.

Number 7

February 4th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^

Those tip slams were daggers, all of them.  I'm hoping the MGoStaff might take up picturing paging them.  If they do, the following questions come to mind:

  • How many times did Indiana convert an offensive rebound into to points from short-range?  There were at least the three Zeller slams, but were there more?
  • How many times was the rebounder someone that had been guarded by someone (like McGary) who had rotated?
  • In those cases, who got beat, necessitating the rotation?  As a secondary matter, should there have been someone who rotated to the abandoned man in the post in that situation? (And who didn't do that)?

jmdblue

February 4th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^

but aside from M games I don't watch much college bball till the tourneys.  He knows the game without shoving his knowledge up my arse a la Joe Buck.  Nor does he describe everything that happens as it relates to a predetermined storyline a la Brent.   Has his schtick grown tired over these many years? Sure.  But he seems to give a crap about both the game and his audience so he gets a pass so far as I'm concerned.

InterM

February 4th, 2013 at 1:15 PM ^

as probably the closest opinion to mine.  I agree with Brian that a steady dose of Vitale would be too much, and even with just the single dose of Vitale on Saturday, I thought he needed to dial it down a couple of notches -- he seemed to running at 11 almost from the get-go.  But, as others have said, I find his enthusiasm for the game genuine, and I like his positive approach to talking about college kids.

I'd put Raftery a rung lower -- also genuine enthusiasm, yes, but does he need to do that voice-changing schtick (you know the one) quite so often?  And Musburger is far worse. Jmdblue nails it with his "predetermined storyline" -- no deviation from his script no matter what happens in the game (if he's even watching, which is often hard to tell).

Blue boy johnson

February 4th, 2013 at 1:03 PM ^

You know what Hardaway vs Oladipo reminded me off? Pistons and Lakers NBA finals, Rip Hamilton matched up against Kobe Bryant. Rip's a really nice player and all, but damn, it was clear he wasn't in the same class as Kobe as a player. Same thing Saturday night, Hardaway just isn't in the same class as Victor Oladipo.

After watching this game, and seeing Oladipo against Butler and MSU, I can't believe Hardaway is higher ranked as an NBA prospect than Oladipo. I think this is going to change. I like THJ but I would take Oladipo over him everyday of the week.Michigan has no one to check Victor Oladipo, and really there probably aren't many in college basketball that can guard Oladipo effectively, this makes Indiana a very dangerous team.

Blue boy johnson

February 4th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^

Thanks, I checked out a couple 2013 mock drafts and Oladipo was behind Hardaway and either not ranked or ranked in the 30's. I would not be surprised at all if Oladipo ends up a lottery pick.

Oladipo is a Junior. Good example of a kid blowing up his Junior year and increasing his draft stock. Kind of reminds me off another Tom Crean player by the name of Dwayne Wade, who blew up his Junior season at Marquette and went on to the NBA as a high(5) lottery pick. Not saying Oladipo is as good as Wade but he definitely is blossoming as a Junior.

NBA Draft Net has Oladipo at 32, which is pretty consistent with other rankings I've seen

http://nbadraft.net/players/victor-oladipo

champswest

February 4th, 2013 at 3:14 PM ^

Watch him throughout the whole game, how he carries himself, how he jestures, etc.  I was down on him from watching IU play other games before UM.  Some people, like you perhaps, may like his act, others don't.  I don't.  Call me old school.

thepowerrank

February 4th, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^

1. Stauskus and Robinson don't hit threes

2. Get behind in the second half

3. Burke and Hardaway try to do everything themselves with 1 on 1 moves

It's just human nature that stars want to single handedly bring their team back when behind.  Anyone who has ever played a pick up game knows that.  But it's not the most efficient way to crawl back in the game.  Better drive and kick, and keep shooting.

Michigan takes the rematch because of the low likelihood they get behind Indiana in A2.  I hope and actually believe their defensive intensity will be higher as well.

Needs

February 4th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^

It's not so simple. 

Indiana eliminated the kick by refusing to help on the driver from the wings and regularly going under the screens. If the defense isn't collapsing on the penetrator, then the drive and kick game isn't there, and if they're going to go under screens, Burke and Hardaway should probably take the 3s. Indiana decided they'd live with Michigan playing a series of 2-man games between Burke, Hardaway, occasionally Stauskas, and a screener. When we got transitions looks, we knocked down fewer shots than we normally would. We tried some dribble handoff motion with Stauskas, and a bit with GRIII, but it rarely amounted to much because they were both off their games.

There was a bit too much clear out stuff from a 1-4 set, but those were mainly late in the shot clock and had the same pattern of Indiana resolutely not helping.

IPFW_Wolverines

February 4th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^

As far as the refs, the number of fouls each team gets means little. What does matter is when those fouls are called and which players they are called against. When I see Burke and Hardaway with four fouls I start to question the officiating. When I see the "least fouling team" in college basketball suddenly committing foul after foul. I question the officiating. When I see a point being taken away from one team (stauskas three) and two points given to the home team (continuation, ya right) I question the officiating.

Michigan did not play well. There is no doubt about that. Had either Stauska or GR3 shown up this would likely have been a Michigan win regardless of the officiating. However, there is still little doubt where the game was played.

profitgoblue

February 4th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^

I have to say that I was (a) very disappointed with GRIII's seeming lack of interest in the game and (b) Brian's lack of concern for his lack of interest.  My takeaway from the game was that GRIII is either lazy, a baby, or just not that good.  Harsh, I know, but he seemed totally detached from what was going on.  He loafed up and down the court on several occasions in the 2nd half and just didn't seem that interested.  [Insert a saying about big players making big plays in big games here.]

Needs

February 4th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^

I respect you as a poster, but that's a ridiculous assertion. It's one game. If we saw a pattern of loafing and not getting back that spanned multiple games, then you can throw out those accusations. As it is, no one's mentioned or seen anything like that all year. 

Reasonable explanations:

1. He was sick or slightly injured.

2. He was intimidated. Understandable given his inexperience and that crowd. But that's different from being "lazy, a baby, or not that good."

3. He's a freshman playing the most minutes on the team with no backup. He may be wearing out.

4. He got too hyped up before the game, a game played later than the norm, and he was low on energy in the second half. Also understandable given he's probably just learning how to manage his energy on gamedays.

profitgoblue

February 4th, 2013 at 1:59 PM ^

You're right, you're right.  It was definitely an excessive comment on my part.  I just found myself frustrated with him time after time and found myself thinking he was a liability out there in a time when everyone needed to be pulling their weight.  I found myself thinking that, if it were me, I'd be running around like a lunatic hustling as best I could.  I would be a huge liability out there because I suck at basketball but at least I'd be hustling each trip up and down the court.  Beilein must have not seen what I was seeing or maybe had no better option than to play him?  I just couldn't understand it at the time but you're right in that there was probably a good explanation (not that I'm owed one).

(In all seriousness, I appreciate the respectful way you called me out.)

MikeCohodes

February 4th, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^

It's possible he could be coming down with the flu that Stauskas was getting over, and wasn't at 100%?  Considering he played the whole game without rest, it is also possible he was just gassed and didn't have the energy?

I'm not saying I'm not disappointed in his play, because I was, I'm just saying that maybe there's an explanation for it.

OysterMonkey

February 4th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^

to your list of options currently including "lazy, a baby, or just not that good." I think he was defended very well by a good defender in a tough environment and he got rattled and frustrated. He's still developing his ability to get shots on his own, and this is a game where the IU defense mainly made guys get shots one on one. They pretty much shut down M's guards' ability to create for other people.

Spontaneous Co…

February 4th, 2013 at 2:05 PM ^

that he has adopted the role he seems to have voluntarily or involuntarily been placed in, which is "that guy who isn't a big part of set piece offense" and doesn't want to intefere with the Trey and Tim show.  I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I definitely think that if he isn't getting the ball, he isn't going to demand it and the result is an appearance of laziness.  Against less-athletic teams I think he athletically overpowers his opponent for a few adrenalie raising plays per game.  That didn't happen against Indiana and it may be because of him, or IU or some combination of the two.

I wish that if that was happening he'd make himself relevant in the game, but he may be deferring and that can appear as uncaring or uninterested.