McGary goes up strong - Wise beyond his years?
So, I don't know about the rest of you, but in watching the first few games of the season, I often found myself just a LITTLE disappointed to keep seeing McGary getting the ball under the hoop with room and delivering the layup instead of playing the Mighty Zeuz and throwing down the thunder.
Unfortunately, up till last night, we saw him go up maybe once per game, at most, and sometimes pretty weakly. I found myself wondering if this was the same guy who shattered backboards in high school. I mean, he definitely was skilled. No question about that. He belonged on the floor. But where was the force? The dominance?
Last night, Mitch McGary went up strong, really strong, several times. It was at least a good portion of that display of power I've been waiting for, and I'm sure may of you have as well. But that wasn't all he did. He wasn't the big guy waiting under the basket to throw down dunks. He was more. Trying to distribute (and turning it over, but at least trying) fighting for rebounds and loose balls, and making a more substantial contribution than just taking it to the rack.
I'm no basketball player (because I suck), but I've got to imagine that for those that can dunk, it's an energy intensive process. A layup is easier, simpler, and allows you in better position to rebound or get back down court in case something goes wrong. It occurs to me that McGary doesn't play soft sometimes out of necessity, but out of skill and maturity. The guy playing above the rim isn't gonna have as much time or energy to also play down low on the hardwood. I've got to imagine that most freshmen with his power and drive are hard to corral and coach to play the smart game. To me, it looks like McGary is already there. All the same, it's nice to know that, as last night showed, when the need or opportunity arises to simply be a 6-10 ball of badass power, he's still got that in the tank.
What do you think? Do you like to see a monster who is skilled enough and happy enough to dial it back and play the smart game whenever that makes sense? Or do you just find yourself dying for McGary to pull a Blake Griffin every time you see him step on the court?
December 5th, 2012 at 12:26 PM ^
still getting his spring back after suffering a leg injury before the season. I think his post presence will be big for us come the start of B1G play.
December 5th, 2012 at 12:29 PM ^
December 5th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
Still not 100%. Of course, there's some questions whether he'll ever be 100% of the player he was hyped to be as a HS junior because his explosiveness could be a bit stunted, but he's still a very very good player and I think we can expect a bit more athleticism as times goes by.
December 5th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^
McGary wasn't hyped as a HS recruit I thought, he wasn't ranked #2 in the nation until he was out of high school and into his year of prep school.
December 5th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^
December 5th, 2012 at 12:28 PM ^
I just want to hear Bill Walton saying "throw it down big man, throw it down" in the back of my head every time McGary gets the ball down in the post.
December 5th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^
Any way he can get the team going is what I like to see. Whether that means coming in and finding open people after getting the ball in the high post, or whether it means coming in and getting the ball of a screen and roll and slamming it home. I know it's crazy to believe, but McGary may be our 2nd most important player this year behind Burke. There have been multiple times early this season where we look dull, slow and have no energy, and McGary will come on and completely change our energy. Whether it be getting offensive rebounds, dunking, or sprinting to the huddle and getting our crowd hype.
Either way you look at it, this kid is gonna be special.
December 5th, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^
The comments about his energy are spot on.
I was at the game last night and told my buddy to watch McGary when he goes in and out of the game...or when we go in to a time-out.
He literally runs when he goes in and out of the game. When he's on the bench and a time out is called, he's the first one to jump up and run out to the players who were on the floor.
I just noticed last night that when he comes out of the game, he also goes down the entire bench to high five everyone.
You can't coach that type of energy, passion and enthusiasm.
Once he harnasses his talents and cuts down on the mistakes, he's going to be very difficult for opponents to handle.
December 5th, 2012 at 1:23 PM ^
I've noticed this as well. He really has taken after his mentor, Novak. If he stays around long enough, he seems like an obvious choice for team captain down the road.
December 5th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
Isn't he 20 something already?
December 5th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^
Dear Obviously Young Person:
Not quite sure there is a tangible difference in maturity levels of 18 year olds to 20 year olds so Blaze's point is still valid.
Sincerely,
Old Person
December 5th, 2012 at 1:00 PM ^
I totally disagree. From personal experience people change a whole hell of a lot from 18-20. Think of yourself as a college freshman compared to a junior.
Hell, look at how THJr is playing in a 2 year window, and that's just basketball maturity.
Sincerely,
A 25 year old who hates that he now has to check "25-34" as opposed to "18-24".
December 5th, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^
Dear Someone who just had their insurance rates lowered:
I'm sure to someone 25 the maturity gap between an 18-20 year old seems pretty stark. Heck even I remember doing things as a Freshman I wouldnt have dreamed doing as a Junior so I do know there is a difference - the key word to me however is "tangible". To someone old like me the shenanigans an 18 year gets into seem pretty close to that of the shenanagans a 20 year old gets into; albiet perhaps with not the same frequency.
Remember, if you ask a 6 year old how they are they will quickly say "I am 6 years and X months old". Why? Because to them those months are important and they are way, way more mature than a lousy old 6 year old with no months.
Sincerely,
Perspective
December 5th, 2012 at 1:26 PM ^
At this point we're arguing semantics, because that 2 year maturity gap will be a big deal to McGary's development, just like it was for THJr. It'll become diminishing returns, but the maturity gap between a 6 year old and a 6.5 year old could be big for certain things, if you haven't read Outliers by Gladwell he uses the example of developing young hockey players in Canada, and the difference a few months can make in kids that young.
I think we agree that a 2 year gap to an 18-20 year old is a big difference, even if it's not to big in hindsight to you.
Sincerely,
Lawnless condo dweller
December 5th, 2012 at 1:40 PM ^
Dear Brother in Arms:
Agreed!
Sincerely,
Fellow Michigan Fan & Blogger
December 5th, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^
December 5th, 2012 at 3:44 PM ^
Seems to fit perfectly with this argument-thing.
December 5th, 2012 at 1:08 PM ^
I love that you replied wtith what you did, considering your screen name.
December 6th, 2012 at 12:54 PM ^
I am certainly not an old person. I am also not a young person. I was just pointing out that, wise beyond his years, when referring to someone who is actually above the standard for his age and being a freshman, is somewhat ironic. Anyway, I don't think there is a set age that people mature. Different things happen to different people, and those people mature in the way their enviornment and DNA has coded them to.
Also, get off my lawn.
December 5th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^
This team is fun to watch. Can't wait for B1G conference play!
December 5th, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^
Does anyone have a link to his music video singing a Bieber song? I'd love to see that.
December 5th, 2012 at 6:00 PM ^
Anyone else think he and freshman Taylor Lewan would have been best friends?
December 5th, 2012 at 1:12 PM ^
At first my response was this: if the question is whether I'd rather have a strong smart big (a'la Blake Griffin) or a smart big who doesn't utilize his strength, your question's a no-brainer. But then you hint at a mental or "Xs&Os" weakness in Blake Griffin's game, ostensibly a weakness that Mitch McGary doesn't have. Tell me what you're talking about, and I'll answer that question.
But then I thought, maybe a better comparison is simply to compare Oklahoma freshman Blake Griffin to Mitch to see what's up. Here's a LINK to Blake's freshman season stats. Immediate first impression: Blake's usage began at over 25 minutes a game. Mitch hovers 10-15 minutes.
So Blake started his career at Oklahoma as Oklahoma's #1 guy. Everyone knew it, and he thrived under that pressure. His freshman numbers are crazy; his field goal percentage compared to his usage rate are beast-mode, never let your foot off the pedal, never stop scoring, never stop rebounding, score at will, rebound at will. That's not really Mitch McGary at this point, and perhaps the comparison is just unfair because of it.
But as for arguing around the typical disclaimers (system, roles, early in the year): what would have happened if Mitch McGary played for Oklahoma in 2007-2008? Could Mitch have thrived as Blake did? Could Mitch have...wait for it...given that Oklahoma squad a better edge to win more games? And conversely, what would happen if we plugged 2007-2008 Blake Griffin into Michigan's current offense? Would Michigan be better or worse?
My gut-check answer: Michigan would be better with freshman Blake Griffin than with freshman Mitch McGary. The possibility of Burke to Griffin any given play would make playing Michigan unfair considering the available weapons we have. McGary on Oklahoma's 2007-2008 squad would put an onus on the other guys that wasn't there before. McGary at his best would still position Oklahoma to win games, absolutely. But 4 other guys would have to play very well, too.
December 5th, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^
I guess I should clarify. I didn't exactly mean to compare McGary and Griffin. Anybody who wouldn't want Griffin is a nutbag. What I meant to say is, do you think that playing a little more subdued game, more distribution, more layups, more time on the hardwood than in the air, shows good decision making by McGary as opposed to simply tryihng to be a high flying whirrling dervish of muscle and basketball running people over at all times?
The reason it's a question is because he clearly is not Griffin. He could get there, but he's not yet. Griffin was one of those truly rare ones that would probably make a killer UFC guy if his basketball career didn't work out. If you are that kind of force, you better damn well use it.
The question is, do you think it shows signs of intelligence for McGary not to try too hard to overplay his athelticism, or would you rather see him try to run through walls on every posession? Clearly, McGary is a beast with some major power. I personally feel that by playing more low, hitting layups instead of always going up to dunk, distributing the ball, etc, he's showing great basketball maturity, because while he has that power, it's not as potent as it was in Griffin or in players like him.
I think it must be hard to get players that have a reputation as a wrecking crew and the body to go along with it to play a more subdued game wherever it is called for.
December 5th, 2012 at 1:39 PM ^
If McGary is playing less forcefully because he's in the process of learning to control his body - put another way - if he's consciously making an effort to learn how to control his spacing and his explosiveness - then he's simply learning to play smart basketball. That would be an indication of a guy limiting foul trouble, which is not only good for him but good for the team. There's definitely reason to be happy about that.
But let's also admit that Mitch's minutes are limited for a reason; and right now, the coaches want him in there only 10-15 (as opposed to Blake's immediate 25+). 15 minutes capped means the coaches want Mitch to play smarter, and to show signs he's learning week in and week out. As a fan, you have to just root for Mitch to play up to the coaches expectations.
Then, if Mitch eventually plays as a guy who can control tempo, drawing defenders to himself and then throwing it down in their faces; I'm telling you right now, that guy will not come out after 10-15 minutes. That guy is gonna be left in to win Michigan a lot of games.
The bottom-line here is that Mitch has to be both smart AND forceful, not one or the other. Blake Griffin was both, very early. Mitch is a work in process, and showing signs of learning to be effective at the NCAA level. He has the size and potential to be very effective. I'm rooting for him.
December 5th, 2012 at 10:26 PM ^
Dunks > Lay-ups. People can block lay-ups easier than Dunks. Dunks make the crowd (and team) go wild. When you go up for a shot, you always try to rise your highest so that the opponent cannot interfere with your shot, whether a dunk or a jump-shot.
Lay-up > pass. When you're on offense your first goal is to get a dunk. That's it. If you can't dunk, you try for a lay-up, if you can't get a lay-up, you try for an open shot, if youcan't get an open shot, you throw it at Burke and say "make something happen!!!" This is true for all players, all the time. You're goal is to score. The only caveat I can think of is when you want to get your team in a rhythm and you need to get a shooter who's having an off-night an open shot (what we've done for THJ a few times.)
To further this, I think he already goes through walls. He's got like 7+ fouls/40 minutes. That's not what you'd call "playing smart". He's not dumb, or whatever, but he's not playing fully within the offense or defense either.
What I'm trying to get at has been posted above: he's still new to the team and system, and playing with a bit of an injury. He's doing all he can, but HE'S NEW. He clearly lacks a step right now from what he had earlier, and this is why he's not dunking. It's not like he can't dunk, or he's looking for the pass when he gets the ball. His goal is to score, a dunk, and when he can't do that (because he's lost a step) he throws it back out.
My .02 of a dolla
December 5th, 2012 at 1:16 PM ^
To address Blaze's question: in my playing days I have never, and never known a teammate, to purposely play soft out of intelligence. You always want your players to play strong. And that is the key. That said, playing strong and dunking are two different things. A great example of this was GRIII's and-one last night. He was going for the dunk, but because he was playing strong, when he got fouled, he was still able to make the layup. You can also see this in GRIII's rebounding. It's the primary reason GRIII is seeing so many minutes already.
I have seen it from McGary also but it is harder for big men to adapt because typically they have always had an inherent advantage by being bigger than everyone. Watching Jordan Morgan evolve over the last couple years is a great example of a big man learning to play strong.
December 5th, 2012 at 1:47 PM ^
I think the most impressive play that McGary made last night was the layup that he made when catching the ball down low, but keeping it high near the rim. He never took a dribble, or even brought the ball in toward his chest. It was a quick - catch, come down, and then put it in the basket - without bringing his arms back inward. This is a high basketball IQ type play that you rarely see out of freshman.
December 5th, 2012 at 2:00 PM ^
NY wolverine.. Whats up with the novels?? Geesshh
December 5th, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^
that McGary was a more capable mid-range scorer based on the highlights that I saw of him before arriving at Michigan. That has been the one area of his game that has left me a little dissapointed. It looked like he had a nice 10-12 foot jumper and I have not even seen him attempt that kind of a scoring opportunity.
December 5th, 2012 at 2:48 PM ^
I think he very well may have that ability but, unlike HS, right now he is surrounded by a ton of good scoring options. Plus he may still be getting his confidence back. By taking a shot, he is taking one away from Burke, THJr and others. His job right now is to get picks, get rebounds and play D and he is doing a great job of playing to his role IMO. Right now, he totally reminds me of a poor man's Ty Hanbrough. If he can refine his game on a block more we could see a mini-Tyler. I would take that for this team anyday.
December 5th, 2012 at 2:26 PM ^
on your McGary snowflake Blaze but ruining tailgates keeps me so busy. /s
December 5th, 2012 at 2:29 PM ^
It might be different if he played 35 minutes a game and 5 games a week, but come on...
He's out of shape and needs to get his weight down. He needs to work harder, not save himself.
I disagree with the assertion that not dunking is smart. On the interior, there is a lot of value in going up strong. Its more likely to go in, it avoids blocks, and makes and-1s more likely. It's worth the marginal increase in effort.
If he was doing 360s or between-the-leg stuff - sure. But a straight up power dunk isn't a dumb play.
December 5th, 2012 at 9:50 PM ^
I think we're over-analyzing. Kids are taught to "go strong" in seventh grade. When you're 6'10", you better have been "going strong" your whole life.