What was wrong with the M defense in the last 30 sec?

Submitted by Michigan Arrogance on

I don't understand the OUTRABBLE (outrage + rabble) about the defensive strategy last night in the last 30 seconds. They had 3 fouls to give... you give them looking for a steal. You can't let Wisc run their 1st choice play to end the game.

Also, I don't mind letting a freshman, <30% 3PT shooter take an off balance 3 form 25 feet.

M played the best game of the year in the most important game of the year. They are playing their best at the end of the year. We lost on a lucky shot off the glass. THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT RE: COACHING.

michgoblue

February 24th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^

Is exactly how I feel.  The defensive strategy made perfect sense.  With  3 fouls to give, you play uber-aggressive D for the steal, knowing that, at worst, you get the foul call and disrupt whatever play Wisco is running. 

What killed us with the foul shooting down the stretch.  You need to at least hit 3 of those last 6, especially when the three guys shooting are not Morgan.  Out team's dynamic play put is in a position to win the game, but we gave it away.

As for the 3 to end the game, it happens.  The D was fine - it was a desparation shot that just found the bottom of the net.  You can't play any tighter on D or you take a chance of fouling the kid during that shot. 

2Blue4You

February 24th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^

Can't complain too much about the D.  Their best player is double teamed outside the 3 point arc with his back to the basket with 2 seconds left.  9 times out of 10 he a. doesn't find the open man or b. the open man misses the off balance 25 ft. 3 pointer.  

michgoblue

February 24th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^

I agree that JB has done a masterul job with this team.  They are the youngest in the B10 and one of the youngest in the nation.  They are also heavily undersized, to the point where teams like Wisconsin regularly have 2-3 offensive rebounds per trip down the field.  Despite this, the team has put together a good record, and has really come close to upsetting some pretty top ranked teams.  I know, almost doesn't count, but for a team this young to have come so far in one season, JB deserves tons of credit. 

On a related point, assuming everyone returns, we are going to be scary good next year.  One question, though:  Do we have any 6'8"+ recruits coming in?  I don't follow MBB recruiting, but how is our incoming class?

Ziff72

February 24th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^

I have no problem with your strategy arguments, but best game of the year?  No.   I think defensively it was one of our best performances but we were pretty poor on offense.   The missed shots by Stu,  Zack and Darius combined with the FT shooting did not make this our best game.

I would like to say that as weird as this sounds these losses have got me thinking that we are one of the better teams in the BT and worthy of a bid.  We have shot pretty poorly from 3 lately and still hung with OSU, Ill and WIs.  If Novak was shooting like he did in January we are a lock for the dance right now.

Todd Plate's n…

February 24th, 2011 at 9:41 AM ^

Can't recall who it was who came to double Taylor, or at least enough to force him to give up the ball...but man, he and the primary defender were oh so close to having that balled tied up.  You could see him (again, can't recall if it was Stu or Vogrich or whoever) pull back a little, i'm sure not wanting to foul. 

Agreed.  Given several options prior to that play, it would be hard not to choose a fade away three from 23+ feet from a guy with twice as many fouls as points up until then. 

This team is good.  They are going to be a hell of a lot of fun to watch the next few years, no to mention over the last few weeks of the season as this thing ain't over till it's over. 

Go Blue!

ijohnb

February 24th, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^

For a couple of reasons.

1.  Shots taken in desperation are taken because the player has no choice but to take them, removing the element of "should I be takind this shot" from said players mind.  It is a lot easier to make a shot if you are totally committed to it.  The stradegy left the shooter with 100% confidence that he was doing the right thing.  A completely clear conscious is a very powerful thing.

2.  It was a stradegy born out of fear, fear that we could not stop them, fear that we could not get a rebound, fear that "something bad" was going to happen.  A team can talk themselves into things.  Think bad - bad will happen.  Perfect example.

3.  Take the kill shot out of the equation.  Don't even foul once, trap Taylor at half-court and temp Wisconsin into an awkward 3 on 2 going toward the basket.  You take 3 out of the equation and also give yourself an opportunity to get the ball back.

John Beilien is outstanding.  If I had my choice, my kid would be John Beilien for Halloween and Santa Beilien would bring presents down the chimney.  However, I really think that everything was wrong with the way that last sequence was defended.  While he will not say it now, I bet you that is the last time that he employs anything close to that stradegy if the same circumstance arises.  He coaches like a mathmetician, everything is a statistic, everything is a percentage.  But sometimes that is not how sports work.  Sometimes sports is pumping out your chest and saying "try to beat us, I dare you."

That stradegy said "we are not supposed to win this game, we need a trick to win this game."  He tempted fate.  Fate put the f#%king smack down.

Go Blue.  Go JB.  Beat the Gophers.

ijohnb

February 24th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^

defending the basket for 21 seconds, they would have been defending the basket for as long as Wisconsin took to take their shot, which would have been about 5 if you essentially force their hand.  THE ONLY THING you don't want in that situation is a 3 pointer with no time on the clock.  By employing the strategy that Beilien did, you brought that exact circumtance into the equation.

If I am Beilien, here is my bottom line.  Taylor is not shooting.  They are not shooting a 3.  Whatever it takes to ensure those things do not happen, that is my defense.  If you are going to take your chances with a shot, take your chances with an awkward leaner with 10 seconds left on the clock, not a 3 at the buzzer that leaves you no chance to respond.  We had overtime in our pocket.

Please don't take this as harsh toward Beilien.  I am his biggest fan.  That was just a semi-debacle and I think it warrants discussions.  Granted, make free throws and we are not having this discussion.  Just did not like it.

OMG Shirtless

February 24th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^

Could you please explain how you force someone to take any shot, let alone an awkward leaner with 10 seconds left on the clock?  Does Douglass come up behind someone, grab their arms, and force the ball towards the rim?  Wouldn't they just use that 10 seconds to find a better shot?

ijohnb

February 24th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^

taking a shot by putting them in a position where not taking the shot would be illogical.  Wisconsin was not going to hold for one.  Spoon feed them a "meh, I guess" type opportunity right away.  Coaches do it.  You just don't know that it has been done because it is clever and inconspicous.  You want the ball back in your hands before time expires.

el segundo

February 24th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^

you think Michigan should have given Wisconsin a good shot, in order to get the ball back?

That's nuts.

Even if you only think that Michigan should have given up a "meh" shot, there's no guarantee that Wisconsin would have settlled for it.

Finally, and most importantly, you don't give them any shot that they think is good enough to take when they have other options.

ijohnb

February 24th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^

it at the TV in real time.  It has nothing to do with hindsight.  (Additionally, assuming that was a good strategy, if executed well, the sixth foul would have been happening on Taylor with 2.3 seconds to go, not 6).

ThWard

February 24th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^

We're brothers in being upset and disappointed by the result.

 

But the fact that you incorrectly thought the strategy was wrong + Wisconsin's 28% 3 point shooter one-armed a bank shot at the buzzer does not make your incorrect thought correct.

 

I'm just saying - maybe the fouls could have come later, but your points 1 and 3 really make no sense.  

 

And relying on the result doesn't support your point any more than "I won the lottery, therefore, the lottery makes mathematical and financial sense, period."  UM's strategy resulted in a guy shooting less than 30% from 3 hoisting a one-armed 27 footer at the buzzer that he overshot by about a foot.  I mean.  Come on.

jmblue

February 24th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^

I agreed with Beilein's strategy, but let's avoid using turns of phrase like "incorrect thought."  This isn't a math problem where there is only thing can be done correctly.  There are two legitimate opinions on this topic.

ESNY

February 24th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^

So because a mediocre shooting freshman threw up a shot that he admitted was terrible but he got a lucky bank off the backboard proves your point?

Every single person with basketball knowledge agreed with the strategy.  You keep fouling to run more time off the clock so they have to throw up a desperation shot and can't set up a good play.  Wisco happened to get hit the shot but that doesn't mean the strategy was wrong.  

The strategy was right but the exection wasn't perfect in that they fouled too quickly and left too much time on the clock.

ijohnb

February 24th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^

read what you are writing.  You are advocating for a strategy that warrants discussion as to the correct time to foul somebody when your team has the lead.  The correct answer is that you don't foul.  You play f#%king defense like they had the last three possessions when Wisconsin did not score.  You have the lead, you are at home, you have the crowd, you have the momentum.  Why are we discussing the timing of fouls.

ESNY

February 24th, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^

And you are advocating a strategy to get our players out of position, cause you know, trapping Taylor at mid-court is an easy thing to do and then let them tie the game so at least we get the ball back.

We are discussing why you think fouling=not playing defense. 

They did play defense.  Not sure why you have such a problem with it. The fouls made Wisco start their offense all over again with less time left on the clock, which makes every time less effective. it wasn't a timid move or showed they had no confidence.  It was a smart play, that most people with basketball acumen agree with.   But of course, you know more about stradegy then all of them combined.

ThWard

February 24th, 2011 at 4:55 PM ^

If there was no penalty for fouling, do you know what smart teams would do on defense, ijohnb?  Foul.  Foul the PG when he tried to cross you over.  Foul the SG when he tried to get around a screen.  Foul the Center to prevent a post pass.  Etc.

 

My point is this - Beilein had a bunch of consequence-free fouls in his pocket.  He chose to use them to disrupt a patient, smart, experienced offense - the most efficient offense IN THE COUNTRY.

 

Deciding to do so isn't mutually exclusive with playing "f#%king defense."  They did both.  Disrupted Wisco's sets and played "f#%king defense."  The timing disruptions from the consequence-free fouls PLUS said "f#%king defense" led to Wisco's final shot being a sub 30% 3-point shooter one-arming a rushed 27 footer at the buzzer that was roughly one foot off target.

 

But it went in.  C'est la vie.  It's hard for fans to understand, but not every negative result results from a wrong or even bad decision.

ijohnb

February 24th, 2011 at 7:12 PM ^

actually talking about it with me TH Ward.  All my initial point was intended to do was say it was arguable, very arguable at that.

You ice the kicker once, twice if the spirit moves you.  But four times?  More than being iced they have had an opportunity to consider all of their options more clearly.  I am a play-on kind of guy.  I would have brought a trap on Taylor at half cout and literally forced everything inside the three point line once-if he successfully broke it.  I think JB should have taken a TO before Darius' inevitable miss (this game-not every game) and really thought about this.  OT belonged to M in my opinion and I don't think it would have been a bad place to be.  Novak was due.  Douglas was due.  They could not guard Hardaway if we gave em our playbook.  I just don't think you make it a one shot-once chance type of deal. 

I want Beilien to coach Michigan for a long time and expect success.  Just thought those 25 seconds were misguided.

ThWard

February 24th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^

Let me say this - I'm with you in feeling the disappointment.

 

But points (1) and (3) are batshit crazy.  (1) No, shots taken out of desperation are not better than shots taken by design.  That's an unprovable and yet illogical assertion based on being disappointed by the outcome.  I doubt you believe it, I think you're just upset (as am I).  (3) No, up 2, you don't "tempt" the other team to come at you 3-2, no matter how "awkward" you think that fast break will be.

 

This is classic "we lost so the decision was wrong" hindsight logic.  

 

Don't take this as a shot at you - you, like me, are prob still in shock how that game ended.

Mr Miggle

February 24th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^

distracting us with your horrible spelling while making points that make no sense

1. You make it sound like he just calmly drained that shot. That completely clear conscience somehow led him to overshoot the rim badly.

2. It was a strategy that let our players play more aggressively, pretty much the opposite of how you describe it.

3. Why couldn't that 3 on 2 lead to a wide open 3? That's a staple of Wisconsin's offense.

 

ijohnb

February 24th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^

My spelling in that post was a little humiliating.  I agree.  I am typing fast without the benefit of spell check and just really don't care if every word is spelled correctly.  Intentionally fouling is not playing aggressively.  It is the opposite.  It is employing a "genius" scheme when no scheme was necessary. 

What about this scheme.  "We are good.  We have a two point lead.  You can't score on us because we are going to stop you."  Not, "we are going to intentionally foul you four times because god forbid you run a set against us because everybody knows you will score then."

They are a good team.  It is time that everybody, including JB starts acting like it. 

In reply to by ijohnb

Mr Miggle

February 24th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that it's harder to get a good shot in 5 seconds than in 20. It was simply the standard strategy pretty much any coach would employ.  I'll bet every player there understood it. It was aggressive because it allowed them to trap at the end without allowing Wisconsin time to get an easy shot if they broke it.

DutchWolverine

February 24th, 2011 at 9:46 AM ^

I agree.  Can't really complain about the defensive strategy.  However, if I was going to nit-pick, I wouldn't have Morgan picking up his 4th foul outside the 3 point line.  If it goes to OT, then we could use that extra foul before he fouls out.  Also, JB said after the game that they knew Wisc wasn't going to wait for the final shot.  If that is the case, then why foul to force them to take the last shot.  Maybe one or two to disrupt their rhythm.  But why not leave a little time so if they do tie or go ahead, then you still can set up one more play.  Just a thought.

michgoblue

February 24th, 2011 at 9:50 AM ^

I know that most of the press goes to Hardaway and Morris, but this game really highlighted for me the importance of Morgan.  When he is in the game, our offense is so much more dynamic.  When he came out b/c of the fouls, we sputtered, and were even more outplayed inside.

TrppWlbrnID

February 24th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^

all year long this team has struggled in the last five minutes of the games, indiana crept back into it, going to OT vs iowa after a sizable lead, let NW within 3 after being up 13.  even last night they had their shots to make the game more than one possession under 2 minutes and they get a shot clock violation, a THjr turnover in the lane, missed free throws.  young team, it happens, they need to learn to win a game down the stretch, not just get a lead and coast

abertain

February 24th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^

Well, I've been on the side of disagreeing with the strategy over on UMhoops because of foul trouble in OT, the chance of fouling a guy in the act of shooting and the fact that most players aren't coached all that well to give fouls, they're coached to play solid defense. This strategy creates an awkward situation for athletes. For my money you put them in familiar situations.

 

However, I think you can also argue that it was a good strategy that had a 28 percent shooter banking in a 3. I'm just not a fan of the strategy for any team I'd play or coach in the future because I think it seems like a good idea but runs too many risks. That said, it's more of a semantics/preference argument. I don't think it's as black and white as not even attempting to impede  Evan Turner in the BTT last year. Again, just the sort of situation where reasonable folks can disagree.

me

February 24th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^

I am on the other side of the fence and like the strategy but I hear what you're saying.  The foul trouble thing didn't bother me until it was Morgan making the foul.  That's when I thought to myself, maybe that wasn't such a good idea.   But at the end of the day the strategy worked as you say you "had a 28 percent shooter banking in a 3."  My only concern of not playing it that way is that you gave Wisconsin 30 seconds to essentially run their offense and set up the best possible play.  Michigan wasn't going to get the ball back regardless of how that played.  Or if they did, it would have been nothing but a desperation heave.

 

j-turn14

February 24th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^

When you're losing, you don't wait for the last shot. It doesn't make any sense to do so. I thought the last foul UM should have given was the one with 14 or so seconds left. In that situation Wisconsin is going to want to take a shot with 6 or 7 seconds left so they have a chance for an offensive rebound or to put one of our guys back on the ft line for a one-and-one. If they hit said shot, UM has plenty of time to get off one of our own.

oHOWiHATEohioSTATE

February 24th, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^

I agree! I don't even think foul # 6 even happened. Also Wisconsin was trying to drive to the bucket for a short runner/layup and we took that away from them with the double team. We played the numbers and got unlucky. That being said I'm really disappointed with foul shooting the last 3 games!

chitownblue2

February 24th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^

Taylor is a 42% three-point shooter, and one of the most clutch players in the conference.

Gasser is a little used 28% shooter.

We got the ball out of Taylor's hands, and into the hands of the worst 3-point shooter on the floor for them.

These are good things.

He made a shot that he missed so badly it went it. Literally.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 24th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^

This.  The team did exactly what it had to do, except for make free throws that would've rendered the whole thing moot.  The defensive strategy was exactly the right call and it was executed almost perfectly.  And the shot was so bad I actually said to myself "sweet, that's horrible" as it was in the air.  That's what made it even worse when it landed.