Michigan was 324 in adjusted place last year. I think Michigan will try to run next year when given the opportunity, but generally Michigan’s pace of play probably allows for them to have a center play more minutes than other teams. As does Michigan’s tendency to have longer offensive positions when they don’t run, and their emphasis on keeping the other team from running.
2 Likes
Any chance we see John take more shots from the floor with increased minutes? I doubt he’ll ever have a stroke like Moe, but especially in the B1G tourney he hit a bunch of “jumpers” from all over the floor.
1 Like
@umhoops let’s add an over/under for the number of times Teske posterizes and gets posterized. I think he was +1 last year.
3 Likes
Wow. Thanks for the stat! I would not have guessed we played so slowly last year.
Oh ok. That’s kinda boring and expected. I wouldn’t consider that playing big. I’d call that the starting lineup.
I wouldn’t consider M playing big until Brazdeikis or Matthews is playing the 2.
I admit you’re probably right. If I were putting money down I’d bet against minutes for Nunez beyond garbage time. But I wouldn’t say any freshman is a ‘guaranteed contributor’ and if Nunez comes in and is hitting threes and defending in practice he could carve out a role.
There’s a lot that goes into making a player an offensive force (10 pts. for a traditional Beilein center) besides the efficiency rating as you know because you put him as the 4th option, and I expect that he will–and should–play substantial minutes no matter what, but there are also team wide questions too that will affect the minutes he plays.
Last year Teske didn’t show, at least that I remember, that he can hit a mid-range jumper consistently (I do remember one awesome shot, however, that he made int the NCAA where he drifted and still hit a eight footer) That means he can’t space the floor for others if that is required. He might also need to be a second option depending on what other players are able to do.
He was an awesome rim protector and solid rebounder by the end of the year, but it is also unclear (faulty memory) how well he rotated from the weak side, how well he boxed out, and how well he could make to an outside shooter. My sort of vague memory is that he did a lot of good work defensively so probably he did do all those things at least as well as Mo and probably better, but then Mo was not a particularly high standard on defense.
Teske’s rebounding rates were about 14% and 19%, O and D, respectively.
Does that offensive % include the 2 or 3 balls a game that he tips out for others to control? I feel like he gets his hands on so many caroms that extend possessions.
it’s ken pom numbers. probably just box score. i suppose they’d count, but idk.
wagner’s were 6.5% and 24.9% by way of comparison.
1 Like
I think the guy who secures the rebound gets the number and that tipping it back to a teammate is “one of those things that doesn’t show up in the boxscore.”