I didn’t read it like that. Obviously he’s not a good 1-on-1 defender (he actually had at least a few decent one on one possessions last night) and he has picked up this habit of fouling all the time which is driving Beilein crazy.
But when he does have good moments defensively, they usually are because he’s helping in the right spots and proving to be somewhat disruptive.
I’d say that his ability to be in the right spot is also a bit limited by his lack of an ability to always influence a shot though. A great help defender is someone who can be in the right spot and then block shots with the help.
Thanks Dylan - I agree that the fouling is the biggest issue of all. It’s like his mind tells him “ooh the ball, I’m going to swipe at it” but it’s a half second too late! When he goes straight up, he usually at least forces a harder shot.
Also, he doesn’t grab many rebounds, but I do feel he gets a few hockey assists on the boards.
But as others pointed out, if he truly is someone to gameplan against because of the help defense (as Crean stated), then certainly the best counter for an opponent would be to make him guard the ball in 1-on-1 situations
The large sample size argument does not really work for me. I have mentioned it before but from the beginning of this year many people have been talking about how Robinson is doing a better job at puling the trigger on less than ideal shooting situations. It seems to me that Robinson, in past seasons, has always refused to shoot unless he is pretty square, pretty on balance, not on the move and close to the 3point line—it was frustrating as a spectator because turning down decent, if not ideal looks has negative consequences attached. It seems to me, but I am not sure, that Beilein has challenged him to shoot more shots that are less than ideal but still decent looks. He has answered the challenge in terms of taking those shots but he has not answered the challenge in terms of making them. The context within which Robinson is shooting has changed. We have a new sample size.
Tom Crean has been universally hailed for his analysis this year. Not only that, but this is something that I’ve already talked about here this season after watching Duncan closely on D.
I think it is more likely that Wolverheel is Tom Crean’s umhoops username than it is likely that Crean would gameplan against Michigan based upon how awesome Robinson is at off the ball defense.
I think it’s more likely that the people saying Tom Crean was wrong aren’t watching, which is totally fine, the vast majority of people don’t watch specific players play off ball defense, or don’t know basketball very well.
I also don’t think Matthews has the bulk to handle the 4 defensively on any regular basis either. Zak was very underrated in his defense and ability to bump and grind with the 4’s as a player. This is why it is so important to get Livers up to speed. I’ve said from the beginning of practice that Livers would need to be ready to play and play at lot because of the weakness at the 4.
Moving forward JB’s task needs to be to continue to prepare Livers and also get Poole to see the game from a total aspect (offense/defense). Those two have the skill/athletic ability and if there basketball IQ progresses could help this team surprise come BIG tournament.
I think it is not even debatable that Robinson is much better at off the ball defense than he is at on the ball defense, because he obviously is…Even if Robinson was actually pretty bad at off the ball defense Crean would still be gameplanning to put Robinson in 1 and 1 situations just like every team we play. Placing Robinson in 1 and 1 situations is not Crean’s way of avoiding Robinson’s awesome off the ball defense.
I will try to get the exact quote and the context. I could have mis interpreted what he was saying but it was, as if, Crean was rationalizing his decision to attack Robinson 1 on 1( like everyone else) in a way that avoided saying he was bad at 1 on 1 defense.
Crean was saying it was important to get Robinson in foul trouble/off the court because he makes Michigan’s defense better with his ability to defend off the ball. That was the quote/context/gist FWIW.
What’s the point of getting the exact quote and context? I agreed with you on context. He was saying to attack Duncan 1 on 1, just like you said. He could’ve said the exact same thing he did and completely left out the part about Duncan being good off ball and it would’ve made just as much sense. A better question would be why, if as you say, Crean was lying about Duncan being good off ball, he didn’t lie about other players to be nice.
My question to you is how closely have you actually watched Duncan’s off ball defense this year?
Any chance the place you got that from can differentiate between when he’s on ball and off ball? I think everyone here agrees he’s a net defensive negative.
edit: Or if something can do to adjust for the fact that certain lineups generally play together, so Duncan will be with Wagner a lot more than Teske, a defensive plus?
I wish, I just saw it on twitter. Gotta think you’re spot on with the Teske/Livers lineups in together and Wagner/Robinson impacting those 4 guys’ scores.
Yeah, I think some people (not you) are just setting up a straw man that saying Robinson is a good off ball defender means we think he’s a net positive on that end, which isn’t true. He’s just probably not the black hole that some people make him out to be.
You can mold plus/minus stats to say just about anything… Especially when you start slicing up which games/opponents when you’ve only played a third of the season.
BUT with that grain of salt… if you just plug Duncan Robinson into HoopLens … The OFFENSIVE drop off is significantly bigger than the defensive drop off in terms of his on/off splits. Meaning that Michigan’s offense has actually been worse when he’s on the floor by a bigger margin than the defense (which has been pretty even).
I wouldn’t draw a ton from those numbers – blowouts in both directions, small sample size, etc. – but they show that the bigger problem is that he’s not making open shots more than anything on defense.