This discussion was created from comments split from: The freshmen have arrived.
I do like the way Wilson runs the floor…problem is we’re not a transition oriented team by any stretch and Wilson’s game is not suited for the half court at this point in his development. I wouldn’t say rebounding is a strong part of Wilson’s game at this point.
Doyle - have to say I was very skeptical of the post that Doyle was “beasting” Donnal…not that it means much because Donnal isn’t a great defender by any stretch.
I don’t agree with the point about transition. We run plenty when we get defensive rebounds and turnovers. That’s the issue - getting turnovers and rebounds on the defensive end.
Sure, after a made basket, we run our offense in the halfcourt and take our time. But it’s not like we don’t have a good transition offense when the opportunities are there - we do.
Didn’t say we didn’t have anefficient transition team, we simply don’t do it often. Under JB we’ve always been a very slow paced team and that is a fact whether you agree or not. Bottom line is we don’t run, just not something we do under JB
I disagree. We run as much as any team after a stop. Indeed, I’d say our transition offense has been better than anyone’s over the past few years. We just don’t get that many stops because we don’t play real aggressive defense (and don’t foul at all), and we’re not a real strong defensive rebounding team. When we do get stops, you don’t see us walking it up the floor.
In the halfcourt, we do use a lot of time. We also almost never turn it over, so that’s the trade off.
Whatever the reason might be, we don’t run a transition oriented offense so I don’t see how you can disagree. That is the equivalent of saying we’re a good post offense when we drop the ball in to our bigs, only we don’t ever do it.
Bad comparison. I’ll bet we get 30-40% of our points in transition and 2% from the post. You’re hung up on Ken Pom numbers and not actually watching what we do. How many times have guys like Glenn and Tim finished a fast break with a dunk, or how many times have Nik, Caris or someone else (Burke too) spotted up for an open three on the break? It happens a lot. We’re one of the highest scoring and most efficient teams in the country - you think we get all that in the halfcourt? Come on. Wisconsin is a non-running team. Iowa is a non-running team. We are not.
Iowa is a non-running team…no offense, but have you lost your mind? They were literally one of the most uptempo teams in the country last year. It’s not a bad comparison…we simply don’t run, plain and simple. I didn’t say anything about efficiency, we simply run a halfcourt oriented offense.
To really put this in perspective, last year Iowa was #34 in possessions per game while UM was…#339 (out of 340-350 depending on the year). Furthermore, UM was #331 in 09-10, #336 in 10-11, #327 in 11-12, 261 in 12-13. I’d say that confirms we aren’t an uptempo team.
http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/possessions-per-game
To really put this in perspective, last year Iowa was #34 in possessions per game while UM was............................#339 (out of 340-350 depending on the year). Furthermore, UM was #331 in 09-10, #336 in 10-11, #327 in 11-12, 261 in 12-13. I'd say that confirms we aren't an uptempo team.NCAA Basketball Stats - NCAA BB Team Possessions per Game | TeamRankings.com
Tempo (possessions per game) does not equal pace. As LAW pointed out, we don’t turn it over and we don’t foul (although we are an above-average defensive rebounding team). If we did turn it over and fouled (2 things that will shorten a possession) at an average rate, we’d probably be somewhere towards the middle in possessions per game. (I haven’t done the math.)
I actually think the inverse - we would be an even slower team if we turned the ball over based on the premise that the opposition would have the ball more and take more shots. In any event, I was anticipating this exact contention, for which I respond with this:
UM only puts up a shot in transition 23.4% of their possessions
http://hoop-math.com/Michigan2014.php
Iowa 36.7%
http://hoop-math.com/Iowa2014.php
That’s a pretty large discrepancy. No matter what way you cut it, raw possesions or percentage thereof, we’re simply not a transition oriented team, we play a halfcourt game.
Iowa is one of the fastest teams in the Big Ten. They average 15.1 seconds per possession – the 4th fastest time. They also rank 339th in average defensive possession length. both of those say that they play really fast offensively.
Michigan runs really well in transition, but does it selectively. Michigan’s kenpom numbers are a bit skewed because it uses a longer possession when the easy basket isn’t there… But UM is all about running at the right times, not running all the time like a pure transition team.
I actually think the inverse - we would be an even slower team if we turned the ball over based on the premise that the opposition would have the ball more and take more shots. In any event, I was anticipating this exact contention, for which I respond with this:UM only puts up a shot in transition 23.4% of their possessions
http://hoop-math.com/Michigan2014.php
Iowa 36.7%
http://hoop-math.com/Iowa2014.php
That’s a pretty large discrepancy. No matter what way you cut it, raw possesions or percentage thereof, we’re simply not a transition oriented team, we play a halfcourt game.
First of all, I wasn’t saying that Michigan ran a lot of transition, I was saying that amount of transition isn’t the only factor in possessions per game, and specifically, the less you turn it over and the less you foul, the fewer possessions per game you’ll have. I don’t even think there can be an argument against that. Mathematical fact. I don’t even understand your view that if our opposition had the ball more and took more shots, we would be even “slower”. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “slow”.
You’re right, it is simple math. If UM turns the ball over more, how would that result in UM having more possessions per game? That simply doesn’t make sense. By necessity that means that the opposition has taken the ball away from UM for x amount of seconds, thereby depriving UM a possession for Y amount of seconds. If UM doesn’t have the ball as often due to TOs, how can they have more possessions?
First: The discussion of tempo seems very odd compared to the thread title.
Second: I’m about to make the matter worse.
Third: Isn’t the kenpom number for possessions the total number of possessions that both teams have combined? Therefore, each time there is a new possession, it goes into the calculation of “XX possession game”? e.g. Michigan beat LBSU in a 68 possession game, LBSU lost to Michigan in a 68 possession game.
Iowa was a much better defensive team than us, rebounded much better, and was not very patient on offense. All of those things are going to lead to more possessions. Again, I’m talking about whether we run after a miss. We do. Indeed, we’re great in transition. That’s a very different concept from whether we play at a fast pace all game long (including the half court sets), or whether we do things to speed the game up (like pressure defense).
Frankly, there have been very few teams over the past two years that have a collection of guards and wings like Burke, Walton, Hardaway, Nik and Caris, and when we run the break with those guys, it has led to a lot of big finishes at the rim for Glenn and Tim (to a lesser extent), and a lot of open looks on the wing. I mean, Jesus, some of our more prolific, memorable plays from the past two years have been on the break. I can think of at least:
-
Spike long bounce pass to Glenn for a dunk against VCU;
-
Glenn dribbling down the middle, spinning in the air and finding Trey for an open three against VCU;
-
Tim leading the break and finding Spike for an open three against Louisville (I think either he or Trey similarly set up Nik’s corner three in that game - of course, his only one);
-
Tim finishing on the break against Cuse;
-
Trey driving the length of the floor and dishing backward to Mitch against Cuse;
-
Nik pushing the ball and making a great behind-the-back pass to Mitch for a layup against Florida;
-
Glenn with probably 3-4 huge dunks on the break against Iowa in 2013;
-
Caris this year against MSU, faking the three from the corner on the break and driving in for a dunk;
-
Walton, MSU road game this year, finishing with a finger roll and foul on the break;
-
Someone (Caris, I believe) pushing the ball against MSU at Breslin and dropping it backward for Nik, for a wide open spot up three (with Vitale yelling “uh oh” as soon as Nik caught it);
-
Illinois game this year - seems like we had a million run out opportunities in the first half with wide open shots on the wings from everyone;
-
Texas and Tennessee - as I recall, we broke both those games open (obviously, TN later rebounded and came storming back) with several open looks from three in run-out situations.
That’s just off the top of my head. We are not some slow, grind it out team after a defensive rebound. After a made basket, yes, we do not force things on the offensive end. Agreed.
You're right, it is simple math. If UM turns the ball over more, how would that result in UM having more possessions per game? That simply doesn't make sense. By necessity that means that the opposition has taken the ball away from UM for x amount of seconds, thereby depriving UM a possession for Y amount of seconds. If UM doesn't have the ball as often due to TOs, how can they have more possessions?
Possesion: A statistic in basketball defined as the time a team gains offensive possession of the ball until it scores, loses the ball, or commits a violation or foul. By definition, the shorter an average possession length, the more possessions per game. Turning the ball over means shorter possessions means more possessions per game.
By the way, I think I do have it backwards with regards to fouling. I’m guessing the more you foul on defense, the longer the possessions get meaning the fewer possessions per game.
UM plays up-tempo when it makes sense…Beilein wants to play fast but not at the expense of getting quality shots on as may possessions as possible.
Like any coach, JB would love to get as many easy buckets in transition as he can but he also understands, that it’s a lot easier said than done. JB knows that playing up-tempo in situations where it isn’t warranted leads to bad shots and TO’s.
I think ‘tempo’ is completely overrated. Good offense is about getting quality shots and putting the right players in positions to make those shots. Whether it is in transition or in the halfcourt, JB has been able to create a scheme that gets his guys great quality shots and those guys have done a great job of converting those quality shots into points.
That’s not correct logic - if UM turns the ball over and the opposition’s possession lasts for 25 secs each time UM commits a TO, how in the world would UM possessions increase? Just doesn’t make sense. You’re going from A > C without addressing B. Long story short is team X turns the ball over to team Y and team Y keeps the ball for as long as Team X would’ve had the ball if the TO didnt occur in the first place, which means that Team X does not generate more possessions by turning the ball over unless team Y only has the ball for a very small amount of time each time team X turns the ball over.
That is the functional equivalent of TOP in football. If UM has 4 TOs that doesn’t mean they’re going to have more possessions if the opposoition uses 9 mins of clock and runs strictly run plays for a TD after those TOs, in fact the opposite is true.
Pulled this graph in January … Pretty much shows how often teams run … via Synergy. Michigan is about average in terms of percentage of transition possessions, but is lethally efficient.
A big guy that runs the floor is extremely valuable and I think Jordan Morgan did a great job of that. The difference between Michigan and teams like MSU/Iowa is that those teams will run off of misses – something you’ll almost never see from Michigan.