Bball Starting Lineup
What do you think of this?
1. Simpson
2. Matthews
3. Brazdeikis
4. Livers
5. Teske
Poole comes off the bench in a Vinnie Johnson role (Millennials--ask your dads). Maybe this calms him down and improves bench scoring. Livers can slide down to the 5 as needed for small-ball (and Matthews and Brazdeikis can adjust accordingly), and the backup center combination of Castleton, Davis, and Johns can be used situationally depending on the match-up. And yes, DDJ over Brooks.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:00 PM ^
This does sound like a good starting lineup. I cannot see a scenario where Davis has a matchup that warrants meaningful minutes. Castleton is the back up five, period. Overall, I am going to trust Coach B on the starting lineup.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:02 PM ^
One of Livers, Poole, Brazdekis, or Matthews is going to be a sixth man. Doesn’t really matter as they will all continue to get similar minutes.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:53 PM ^
Exactly.
I said the same thing, the exercise is silly because the rotation is so short. They're all going to get starter's minutes. They're really interchangeable as far as a starting lineup goes. You'll see every combination throughout the course of a game.
Matthews is not going to get similar minutes. As long as Matthews isn't in foul trouble Beilein will play him more than anymore and rightfully so because the team takes a big hit without him on the floor.
I believe Beilein said something along the lines that he would rather burn a timeout than have Matthews come off the floor.
I don't know about that. MPG: Brazdekis 29.4; Poole 33.2, Matthews 32.0, Livers 21.7. I'd expect that Livers' minutes increase from here on out to upper 20's.
They haven't been getting similar minutes though. Livers was getting about 20/game before today. Poole and Matthews were being run into the ground. They should be getting even minutes going forward.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:03 PM ^
I think your floor spacing is going to suffer without Poole. It's a little too late in the season to tinker with the starting lineup IMO. If we were to make any changes, I would actually be more supportive of a Matthews / Livers switch - this improves your shooting and allows Matthews to handle the ball a bit more with the second unit.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:13 PM ^
Livers over Matthews. Iggy slides to the 3 (his more natural position) and Livers is a pretty dang good defender and way better offensively than Matthews. DDJ can play, Castleton can play 10-12 minutes a game it looks like and be effective.
Livers is not better defensively, nor offensively compared to Matthews. You COULD make the argument for offense, but Matthews can be a volume scorer and carry the load as he's shown many times. On defense he's nowhere close to the man-to-man, nor help defender Matthews is.
It's incredible how much Matthews is undervalued around here, I don't know if it's recency bias, his struggle with his shot or what, but Charles Matthews on the bench is an absolute crime given how much he provides to the team.
I've posted this already but Beilein said something along the lines that he'd rather burn a timeout than have Matthews come off the floor. At this point with how much we're talking about Teske and Simpson, he is the most underrated player on the team.
He didn't say Livers was better defensively, he said he's pretty dang good and that is correct.
Matthews is an excellent lock-down wing defender. Livers is an incredibly versatile defender that can guard all 5 positions. They're both elite defenders in their own right.
Matthews has miserable offensive nights (see 1-8 vs MSU) more often than he carries the load. His attempts and subsequent failures to carry the load make him just an ok offensive player. Livers is far more efficient and stretches the floor with his shooting. He's low volume and doesn't create so I don't think he's better, per se.
They're both really good players.
Nebraska was the easiest team in the league for Castleton to play against, by a wide margin. I hope he'll be able to hold his own against other teams, but it's too early for me to make that assumption.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:35 PM ^
I hate the idea. Poole is in a slump. He will break out of it.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:41 PM ^
I think the starting lineup and the rotation is fine as it is...
However, if I made a change, I'd put Livers in for Iggy and have Iggy be the instant offense off the bench, not Poole.
Guard initiate the offense too much for me to take Poole out of the starting lineup. If I was the opposing team, I'd just deny Simpson the ball or trap him off the first ball screen and get it out of his hands and now you have Iggy, Livers and Teske who will all immediately take the kind of open 3...or Iggy and Livers will drive, sometimes out of control and Michigan never gets into its offense.
Poole often comes and gets the ball and either brings it up or starts the play when Simpson is being denied.
But I really don't think there's any reason to mess with the lineup, you're going to play the hot hand anyway because we don't have any true depth. So if Poole, Matthews, or Iggy are struggling, Livers is automatically going to replace that person. That's the nice part of the versatility of this team.
You're going to put our most consistent scorer on the bench?
Hogwash!
I'm all for getting Livers more minutes but do it at someone else's expense.
I really don't think he's saying put Iggy on the bench. I agree Iggy should start but if he didn't, he'd still get 30 minutes; so that's not on the bench.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:42 PM ^
Id go with Simpson, DDJ, brazdeikis, Livers, Teske and bring Matthews and Poole off the bench.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:50 PM ^
DDJ over Poole? Its a slump but Pooles hundreds of points pre slump shouldnt be discounted. As of now DDJ simpson and Teske all can be sketchy at 3 point shooting.
DDJ went 1-4 from the field, 0-1 from the line with 0 assists in his first extended minutes. Starting him over Matthews is a bad joke. Poole might need a break, but Michigan is not better with DDJ over him.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:45 PM ^
This does sound like a solid lineup, especially defensively, but I really don't see Beilein changing the starting lineup at this point. If we have the starting lineup we had tonight next year though, the league better watch out
February 28th, 2019 at 11:51 PM ^
Also Austin Davis is the Nolan Ulizio of this team. He should never play, God bless his heart.
Castleton is WAY more skilled with the basketball and even more skilled than Teske was last year. His problem is he's not near the defender Teske is...he hedges just a little too late/hard on screens and he's not nearly as strong as Teske. Give him a year and he's going to be a legit center behind Teske next year. I was hoping to see Teske and Castleton together in the 2nd half tonight.
Johns has some game, but needs another year to develop. He's more of a 4/5 tweener. He'll be legit his junior year, no question.
Love DeJulius' energy and confidence. He's the backup point guard, period. Which moves Brooks to a more natural combo guard position where he can play with or without the ball. Not having to rely on Brooks could be huge in the tournament, he's the kind of guy who might get 3-4 minutes one game and then have three 3's the next. Kind of like Spike in his first year (but not really because Spike was the true backup).
February 28th, 2019 at 11:59 PM ^
Come tournament time I really hope so. Brooks has brought absolutely nothing to the table all Conference season. I’d be shocked if he hit one 3 in a game, let alone 3
February 28th, 2019 at 11:51 PM ^
First and foremost I'm wishing for a speedy recovery for Charles.
Once he's back, I'm hoping for an 8-man rotation: Z, Teske, Charles, Livers, Poole and Iggy playing the most, but trusting Castleton and DDJ to play major bench roles
I wouldn't change the starting lineup at this point of the season, but I would trust Castleton rather than Livers to be getting most of the minutes as Teske's backup, which frees Livers to get the majority of his minutes in rotation with Charles, Iggy, and Poole.
Move Brooks down towards the end of the bench next to Davis---neither of them has shown themselves to be dependable backups and should only be getting mop-up duty.
DDJ gets the minutes Brooks used to get to give Z a breather or two, but Z should still be getting 35+ minutes unless it's a blowout. And when DDJ is in for Z, then absolutely must have Poole in at the 2.
Teske gets 30~32 minutes/game, Castleton 5-8 minutes backing him up with a bit of Livers at the post when we go with a small lineup.
This 8-man lineup provides the flexibility Coach needs while still keeping our defense humming.
Honestly any minutes Castleton can provide, even if that's against the other team's backup big man, are good minutes to get Teske a breather
Agreed. He starts getting all pink, then red, then purple.
In all seriousness, Beilein NEVER plays a big 30 minutes a game and lately he's been forced to because the dropoff without Teske is massive. The more Castleton can provide legit minutes as a backup, the better. Keeping Teske to 28mpg is ideal.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:51 PM ^
Doesn't really matter what the starting lineup is but I've been pining to see your proposed lineup for 10 min a game. I don't know why Beilein doesn't put Matthews at the 2 more. He was just stressing out about how to give Poole more rest and Poole certainly needs more rest/more accountability.
This would be a better distribution of minutes at the 2-4 positions:
2: Poole 30 min, Matthews 10 min
3: Matthews 20 min, Iggy 20 min
4: Livers 30 min Iggy 10 min.
That gives each of those four 30 minutes. Livers absolutely needs to be playing 30 minutes and there's no reason the other three should be playing more than that.
I'm hoping this stretch without Matthews convinces Beilein that Iggy is fine at the 3 and Livers needs to be playing a lot more such that he goes with Matthews at the 2 for 10 min a game.
It is frustrating to complain about a lack of depth when you have Livers wasting away on the bench for 20 min a game.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:56 PM ^
Matthews isn't a good enough shooter to be the 2.
He doesn't have to be in this offense as long as 2 other shooters are on the floor.
Matthews may not be able to shoot, but Iggy and Livers can...which will stretch the defense. Teske can pick and pop.
You're still playing 4 out, 1 in whether Matthews is playing the 2, 3, or 4...
That's what we're saying, unless you're Teske or Simpson, you're 100% interchangeable. The offense is 4 guys around 1...and you really don't need Simpson (when specifically referring to how the offense works) other than for ball handling, but if you're just running the offense, his position isn't doing anything the other 3 guys on the outside aren't doing. When plays break down, you need him to get the ball and run a quick play versus the actual offense.
1. We play Brooks at the two and he's a worse shooter than Matthews. The effect of playing this lineup 10 min a game mostly replaces Brooks minutes with more Livers minutes and that's a major win.
2. If that's a concern (which it isn't), play Iggy at the two. You don't lose any shooting by putting Livers in for Poole for a few min a game. You improve the defense. You give Poole the rest he needs. No good reason not to play that lineup for 10 min a game.
3. I just looked up this trivia: Matthews is shooting better in conference play from three (35%) than Poole (32%). He's perfectly fine for 10 min a game at the 2.
C: Teske - 30
Castleton - 7
Livers - 3
PF: Iggy - 15
Livers - 25
SF: Matthews - 25
Iggy - 15
SG: Poole - 33
Matthews - 7
PG: Simpson - 33
DeJulius - 7
Totals:
- Simpson - 33
- Poole - 33
- Matthews - 32
- Iggy - 30
- Teske - 30
- Livers - 28
- Castleton - 7
- DeJulius - 7
Johns can eat into (or replace) Castleton's minutes and Brooks can eat into (or replace) DeJulius' minutes.
Would love to see Brooks have a legit 5 mpg and get Matthews and Poole down to 30.
And Johns get a legit 3 to take from Teske.
It's still really just a 6 man rotation, but those 4 guys stealing some minutes in key moments is huge. Together you're talking about 7+7+5+3...that's 22 minutes which is a solid "7th man."
Even 11 and 11 would combine for a solid "7th" and "8th" man.
I'd start the top 5 hoopers alive: Castleton, Castleton, Castleton, Castleton and Castleton.
At the end of the day, the five most important players on the team is our starting five. You could make a legitimate argument for every single one of them being the most essential player, and you could argue it'd be crazy to take any one of them out of the starting lineup.
Simpson is the head of the snake, lead dog, offense isn't our offense anymore without him, and point guard defense takes a massive hit.
If you take Poole out there are 0 shooters in the starting lineup, and that is horrendous to even think about especially for an elite team.
If you take Matthews out your taking out your most impactful player combining both ends of the floor, and the guy that eats the most minutes.
If you take Iggy out you're taking out your leading scorer, which is incredibly irrational
If you take Teske out there is no replacement even close to his ability defensively, shooting, and physicality.
I will be in the minority but I think we're screwed if something happens to Poole, just as much as if something happens to Simpson. Shooting is our achilles heel already, and has been the reason for all of our losses essentially, and without Poole you're almost guaranteed a bad shooting night with very limited spacing.
0 shooters without Poole?
You have the same number of shooters in the game if you put Livers in for Poole. You still have Livers (44%, easily best on the team) and Iggy (40%, also better than Poole).
And how's this for trivia: Jon Teske is shooting 40% from three in conference play. Jordan Poole? 32%. Thirty-two percent! That's worse than Charles Matthews is shooting in conference play (he's at a solid 35%).
So no, Jordan Poole is not the only shooter in the starting lineup. He's been quite disappointing this year, in fact.
Yeah, I should've specified on that part:
Percentages don't take into account the type of shots taken though. Percentages are always useless without context. DeAndre Jordan was the best shooter in the NBA a few years ago if that's the only way you're measuring it. There's no question Poole is the best shooter on the team, and it's evident in many areas (warmups, games, practice etc...)
No question the stats you provided are true, however I'm obviously talking future predictive possibilities here, so while all of those are true, would you take your stats and say Jon Teske is a better shooter than Jordan Poole?
Basically, his shot making ability doesn't exist elsewhere on this team, which consists of mostly average to good spot up 3 point shooters. There's simply no elite team that has a good chance of winning anything desireable without a guy that can create his own shot and shoot the ball off the bounce well. The only guy that is close is Adrian Nunez, and he's nowhere close to being ready I would assume.
Now so with that considered, if you don't have Jordan Poole, there are many things that will be negatively affected. Three point volume will go down first of all, as open shots will generally be created off of kick outs and spot ups. Teams can collapse into the paint much more freely when we're dribbling outside the arc, because no one is going to shoot it unless they're wide open (though I have to admit Iggy gave glimpses that he's at least willing to do so, while Matthews is just inefficient with those types of shots), and that clogs up the paint. And late game situations where shot creation/making ability is so important will be negatively affected (think away game late at NW or the comeback attempts vs PSU or MSU where Jordan's shot creating ability was on display).
Perhaps how I'd put it is that no one on our team necessarily can always "take what the defense gives them" as well as Poole. If he has daylight he's able to shoot it, no matter if he's going forwards, left, or right, if they're too close he has the ability to drive. Our other players are much more reliant on rhythm, readiness to shoot, position on the court etc (Matthews cannot shoot 3s unless he's completely set for awhile, Iggy's release is too long for him to be a 3 point threat other than spotting up, Livers can shoot well while going left but not when he goes right. None of them are shot creators from 3, but rather beneficiaries of Simpson/Poole drives), and so to not have a guy like Poole on your team is deadly and not in a good way
Uh, bro.
1. Those are three point shooting percentages. They take into account precisely what type of shots they're taking: three pointers. Bringing up Deandre Jordan's shooting percentage in a discussion about three point shooting is ridiculous.
2. If you're implying that Poole is taking more difficult shots, you are correct. That's not a credit to him, that's a bad thing.
I don't really think he's a worse shooter than Matthews despite shooting a lower percentage in conference play but he takes bad shots because of poor decision-making, not out of necessity. Of course he can get a bad shot any time he wants. Anyone can do that. Defenses want you to do that. The fact that he takes too many bad shots is precisely the problem. Show more restraint and let the offense create better shots or get out of the game and quit hurting your team.
I was making an analogy, but with 2-pointers. I could've make the same analogy with 3-pointers and say Steph Curry isn't even top 5 in 3% percentage but I didn't want anyone thinking I was comparing Poole to Steph Curry, which I'm not, it's just an analogy.
You're saying as if every shot Poole takes is a bad shot. He still shoots at 38% on the season, and that's taking the hardest shots on the team. He rarely takes any 3's from the corner, and not a lot of attempts are created by others. We rely on Poole to both get his shot and to make his shot, while others rely on themselves to make it, but it's up to their teammates to get their shots. And yet he hovers around just below 40%
The reason we play the way we play is in large part of Poole's ability. Even a lot of his "bad shots" as you say happen at the end of the shot clock, and are shots that sometimes fall that would be much more inefficient with anyone else attempting them. Of course I would love if he dialed back his "bad shots" but I would also think that having a better offense to create open looks for Poole, instead of him always relying upon himself to score.
Again I'm not saying he's Steph Curry, but his ball handling and elite shooting ability isn't replicated elsewhere on the team.
I think whatever Coach Beilein thinks should be the starting lineup works for me.
Poole is too valuable as an extra ball handler. Teams would just force Mathews or Livers to have the ball more in the back court. Those guys are good one on one,(closer to the rim),Poole can create from half court at a much better rate
Is there official word on Matthews? That boot didn’t look promising.
I have not read the responses so perhaps someone has covered what I have to say here.
I cannot say enough bad things about this. Anyone who does not understand the issue with this has no understanding of the game and is, otherwise, beyond help. It really is that simple...no reason to even attempt to outline the problems here-at this time. Critique it yourself...maybe you can discover the error of your way.
ah, No!
Hot take: not really, just my observations
We have no superstars on this team. At times that hurts but makes for a good "team"
We have 6 very good players (Z, Poole, Iggy, Charles, Livers and Teske) but each has "faults" or inconsistencies in their games.
We have 3 other guys that have shown flashes of potential but are inconsistent (DDJ, Castleton and Johns). I see Castleton as a pure 5 in this offense and Johns as a pure 4 (needs to improve his shot but seems to have touch and skills for it). I also see Livers as a 4 and not a 5 (maybe spot minutes at 3 and 5) . Outside of extreme foul trouble/injury, I see little reason to play anyone in meaningful minutes outside of those 9.
Teske is our most complete and best player. Not the leader but the best player. Let's hope he is back next year.