I think UM had a better bench if fully healthy, but I definitely would not say much better. I haven’t looked at it, but I bet the statistics would probably back that up as well. Again, I think the teams were pretty evenly matched, but Dawson>>>>>>GR3 is the difference in my opinion.
Now if we’re assuming everyone is healthy, who had the better bench last year? For michigan you would be talking Irvin/Morgan/Spike and I think that is much better than what Msu had to offer
I would argue that michigan had a decided advantage in Levert/Valentine. Not to mention having an impact player like Irvin off the bench
I would argue that michigan had a decided advantage in Levert/Valentine. Not to mention having an impact player like Irvin off the bench
You could certainly make the argument that Levert>Valentine, but you could also make the argument that a fully healthy Appling was decidedly better than Walton. Quite frankly, Trice was better than Irvin off the bench last year as well. Again, all in all, I’d say it was pretty even other than Dawson and GR3 (at least as it relates to the matchup against each other).
“If you put a gun to my head and asked which team would win a 7 game series, with both teams fully healthy, and all games played on a neutral site…I would take MSU. It pains me to say it, but Dawson is the difference…he simply abuses GR3 on both ends of the court.”
If we have a truly healthy McGary for those 7 games, I like our chances.
Not saying it wouldn’t be close, because a player like Mitch makes all the difference in the world against a team like MSU, but I ultimately think MSU would prevail either 4-2 or 4-3 in a seven game series. That matchup between Dawson/GR3 was decidedly in favor of MSU. The rest of the matchups were pretty much even in terms of total impact on the court, with slight differences on either side.
Effective FG% is a better metric, UM allowed 49.4%, while MSU allowed 45.8%. A 3.6% difference. To take it a step further, UM allowed 55 shots per game last year, while MSU allowed 54.2. Taking into account the FG%/SPG combination, UM allowed 27.17 made shots per game, while MSU 24.82, a difference of roughly 2.35 shots per game, which 4.7 points per game at minimum, and more likely closer to 5+ if we take into account the 3 point shot. All that to say, MSU fouling doesn’t give a huge advantage to the opposing offense because they don’t allow second shot opportunities (they clean up the glass) as much, and they generally play more physical defense that doesn’t allow the offense to shot as high a percentage…we’re talking about a 1 point difference at most.
In terms of Dylan’s contention that he’s “not buying it”, well I’m not buying that. We ran out of gas because we were physically punked plain and simple. MSU’s defense extended us out to 25-27 feet on the perimter at times, and their defense was simply suffocating in every way. You want to talk about motivation…that’s a joke. If you can’t motivate yourself to play in the B10 championship game without more, then you probably don’t deserve to win. If we’re being realistic about, we had a man advantage during our victory at MSU, we had a decisive victory at home when personnel was relatively even, and we were blown out at a neutral site when Dawson returned.
If you put a gun to my head and asked which team would win a 7 game series, with both teams fully healthy, and all games played on a neutral site…I would take MSU. It pains me to say it, but Dawson is the difference…he simply abuses GR3 on both ends of the court.
Um…no. It doesnt “sound good in theory”. I gave you real, tangible, measurable statistics from real games. That’s not “theory”, it’s practical application, as you well know.
And where did I say it “reflects the whole picture”? Nowhere. You made that up, despite the fact that I said explicitly that this is just one side of things.
And your “opinion” about the benefits of playing tougher defense is just that. Do you have anything tangible to back that up, other than one anecdotal example? Did you also analyze the close games we won because we were in the bonus at the end of a game, and the other team wasn’t? I care about wins, not about how many times we “punked” the opposition.
And you’ve basically made my point. If we gain 6 ppg by giving up fewer fouls and lose 5.5 ppg by giving up more baskets, playing soft defense is a net benefit. Why would that be such a bad idea, unless you have the macho need to feel like a badass all the time?
That sounds good in theory, but it doesn't reflect the entire picture. Sure, MSU may spot the opposing team 6ppg from the FT line, but MSU also had the best FG% defense in the conference at 39.7%, compared to UM's conference worst 44.5%. Essentially, we're dealing with a 5% difference. Assuming an opposing team shoots 55 shots per game (a pretty resonable estimate), and we allow 45% shooting, while MSU allows 40%, that results in 5.5 ppg difference (basing it only a 2 point shots made, difference would even be greater if we factor in 3 point shooting). So, we're essentially spotting at least 5.5 ppg by playing soft defense.
Just say no to FG%… Use eFG%. MSU was 6th in Big Ten last season, Michigan was 11th. Northwestern was first. (Big Ten numbers)
This is pretty much what happened in the B10 championship game vs MSU last year.
Not buying that… Michigan ran out of gas and MSU had all of the motivation in the world after Michigan had already ‘punked’ them twice that season.
That sounds good in theory, but it doesn’t reflect the entire picture. Sure, MSU may spot the opposing team 6ppg from the FT line, but MSU also had the best FG% defense in the conference at 39.7%, compared to UM’s conference worst 44.5%. Essentially, we’re dealing with a 5% difference. Assuming an opposing team shoots 55 shots per game (a pretty resonable estimate), and we allow 45% shooting, while MSU allows 40%, that results in 5.5 ppg difference (basing it only a 2 point shots made, difference would even be greater if we factor in 3 point shooting). So, we’re essentially spotting at least 5.5 ppg by playing soft defense.
I’m of the opinion that playing physical defense is worth more than points from a tangible standpoint, it also serves as a deterrent. Sometimes, giving a hard foul to a player going to the rim, or really “bodying up” a player on the perimeter can influence a given player to simply fold in order to avoid the physical punishment. Once the mental game has been won by the defense, the on court game is over as well. This is pretty much what happened in the B10 championship game vs MSU last year. MSU took our heart by being so relentless from a phsyical standpoint, that our players simply could not withstand that type of pressure. UL does the same thing, the constant pressue eventually wears the opposition out until they fold. In a nutshell, they “punk” you.
I don’t disagree that watching us play a soft, “hands-off” defense can be frustrating, but the other side of it is that Beilein’s strategy of limiting fouls does have a very real payoff. Just as an example, in last year’s BT play, we out scored our opponents by 56 at the FT line, while State was out scored by 61. That’s a 6 PPG differential, which is not trivial. That doesn’t take into account the extra time State’s better players may have had to spend on the bench with foul trouble (State was called for 361 fouls in conference play last year, and we were only called for 255).
Funny, Dickie V just mentioned how banged up MSU is going into the season. Trice is playing much better than I expected and Duke is getting into the lane with ease. Go easy fellas it just a game!