Yes…it was 6 of 8 before the B1G tournament. So while MattD’s 3 of 7 is also correct, if you go back another year, it’s 3 of 9.
our perimeter oriented success is rather novel and still not proven good enough to win a tourney championship
Pointless to debate semantics, but you don’t think our team was good enough to have beaten Louisville that night? Or, had Kentucky not vastly exceeded its 3 point shooting percentage average, you don’t think the team was good enough to beat Wisconsin, a team it had already beaten, and then win one more game against a 7 seed as a 2 seed?
Obviously, Beilein hasn’t cut down Final Four nets yet (hence semantics on the word “proven”), but his last two teams have certainly been “good enough” to do so. I’d expect you’d counter that his style, which relies on outside shooting, is less consistent and less able to win 6 games in a row, but then again they won games like Syracuse in the Final Four while shooting 33% from beyond the arc and beat a 1 seed (Kansas) while shooting 35%…both below season average.
Personally, I don’t think his perimeter oriented approach is all that novel. Maybe it’s like the spread in college football. Plenty of traditionalists don’t like it, but it’s already done revolutionized the sport and won championships.
I’ll say this as it relates to a system being good enough to win a championship - I certainly think our offense was/is good enough to win; but relying strictly on that offense is not. In other words, you need balance. Relying on the 3 ball while being below average in terms of rebounding/defense is generally not a formula for success in my view. Keep in mind, no team has won a tourney championship in the Kenpom era with a defensive efficiency ranking below #21, but UCONN just won the ship with the #39 offense. You need to be good on both sides of the court.
I’m certainly open to a perimiter oriented offense, with the caveat being that you don’t suffer in terms of rebounding or altering shots. In other words, play your 4 out 1 in on offense, but get a super athletic big that can block shots and/or rebound (now you understand my joy in getting Teske…although not super athletic he will block plenty of shots in college) and add in a big or two that can actually score in the post (hence my want for Cook). To oversimplify, keep your focus on the perimeter on the offensive side of the ball and sprinkle in a post game here and there, but moreso we need more shotblocking/rebounding on defense in my opinion. Looks like JB is approaching it that way, and I absolutely love it.
I'll say this as it relates to a system being good enough to win a championship - I certainly think our offense was/is good enough to win; but relying strictly on that offense is not. In other words, you need balance. Relying on the 3 ball while being below average in terms of rebounding/defense is generally not a formula for success in my view. Keep in mind, no team has won a tourney championship in the Kenpom era with a defensive efficiency ranking below #21, but UCONN just won the ship with the #39 offense. You need to be good on both sides of the court.I’m certainly open to a perimiter oriented offense, with the caveat being that you don’t suffer in terms of rebounding or altering shots. In other words, play your 4 out 1 in on offense, but get a super athletic big that can block shots and/or rebound (now you understand my joy in getting Teske…although not super athletic he will block plenty of shots in college) and add in a big or two that can actually score in the post (hence my want for Cook). To oversimplify, keep your focus on the perimeter on the offensive side of the ball and sprinkle in a post game here and there, but moreso we need more shotblocking/rebounding on defense in my opinion. Looks like JB is approaching it that way, and I absolutely love it.
You may be right, but that wasn’t what you said. You said that our perimeter oriented offense was not proven good enough to win a title. The offense is good enough - easily. The defense and rebounding are another matter. BTW, MSU took about the same number of three point shots as we did last season.
I think the key to this debate is that the offensive approach has very little to do with the defensive approach. Does Michigan need to get better defensive? Yep. Does Michigan have the best offense in the country two years running? Yep.
I think there’s room for defense to improve without sacrificing the offense, which is clearly what this program hangs its hat on.
Very few programs are consistently dominant on both ends of the floor… Some struggle to put together good shooting teams, some struggle with defensive rebounding, and some struggle with turnovers.
Only in our case I think the offensive approach does impact the defense. Generally speaking, perimeter based players tend to be smaller players, and if you want 4 of those guys on the court at the same time you are likely to be overmatched in terms of size and strength on the other end of the court. That being said, our lethal offense has generally been able to overcome that mismatch the last 2 years. Do I think that you can sustain success while intentionally fostering that type of mismatch - probably not. But only time will tell and I think JB may be coming around to sprinkling in some more conventional type looks
I'll say this as it relates to a system being good enough to win a championship - I certainly think our offense was/is good enough to win; but relying strictly on that offense is not. In other words, you need balance. Relying on the 3 ball while being below average in terms of rebounding/defense is generally not a formula for success in my view. Keep in mind, no team has won a tourney championship in the Kenpom era with a defensive efficiency ranking below #21, but UCONN just won the ship with the #39 offense. You need to be good on both sides of the court.I’m certainly open to a perimiter oriented offense, with the caveat being that you don’t suffer in terms of rebounding or altering shots. In other words, play your 4 out 1 in on offense, but get a super athletic big that can block shots and/or rebound (now you understand my joy in getting Teske…although not super athletic he will block plenty of shots in college) and add in a big or two that can actually score in the post (hence my want for Cook). To oversimplify, keep your focus on the perimeter on the offensive side of the ball and sprinkle in a post game here and there, but moreso we need more shotblocking/rebounding on defense in my opinion. Looks like JB is approaching it that way, and I absolutely love it.
You may be right, but that wasn’t what you said. You said that our perimeter oriented offense was not proven good enough to win a title. The offense is good enough - easily. The defense and rebounding are another matter. BTW, MSU took about the same number of three point shots as we did last season.
That is exactly what I said - our offensive approach has not proven it can win a title, and that is categorically true. Whether it can be good enough is a subjective question, but results confirm that under JB, that particular style of offense has yet to win it all
I'll say this as it relates to a system being good enough to win a championship - I certainly think our offense was/is good enough to win; but relying strictly on that offense is not. In other words, you need balance. Relying on the 3 ball while being below average in terms of rebounding/defense is generally not a formula for success in my view. Keep in mind, no team has won a tourney championship in the Kenpom era with a defensive efficiency ranking below #21, but UCONN just won the ship with the #39 offense. You need to be good on both sides of the court.I’m certainly open to a perimiter oriented offense, with the caveat being that you don’t suffer in terms of rebounding or altering shots. In other words, play your 4 out 1 in on offense, but get a super athletic big that can block shots and/or rebound (now you understand my joy in getting Teske…although not super athletic he will block plenty of shots in college) and add in a big or two that can actually score in the post (hence my want for Cook). To oversimplify, keep your focus on the perimeter on the offensive side of the ball and sprinkle in a post game here and there, but moreso we need more shotblocking/rebounding on defense in my opinion. Looks like JB is approaching it that way, and I absolutely love it.
You may be right, but that wasn’t what you said. You said that our perimeter oriented offense was not proven good enough to win a title. The offense is good enough - easily. The defense and rebounding are another matter. BTW, MSU took about the same number of three point shots as we did last season.
That is exactly what I said - our offensive approach has not proven it can win a title, and that is categorically true. Whether it can be good enough is a subjective question, but results confirm that under JB, that particular style of offense has yet to win it all
I don’t see it as subjective. Fact: We’ve had the most efficient offense in college basketball the last two seasons. We didn’t lose close games to Louisville or Kentucky because our offense wasn’t good enough to win a title.
I have to respectfully disagree with you Sane - the fact is that you can’t examine a given offense independent of the defense. As others have mentioned, the objective is to outscore the opponent. So, to translate this into simple terms, what’s “good enough” for A team may not be “good enough” for B team. Fact is that the best offensive efficiency rating in recent history wasn’t good enough for Michigan, whereas that same rating would most likely be more than enough for any other team in the S16. In theory, you can score 50 points a game, and still have a “good enough” offense if your defense gives up 49. Conversely, you can score 72 points a game, and your offense isn’t “good enough” because you give in excess of 72. The two go hand and hand.
Moral of the story - efficent and “good enough” are not one in the same
I agree. You have to score more points than the other team to win. When you analyze why you lost, you don’t just say, “Well, we lost, so every component of our team was not good enough.” We weren’t just efficient last season, we were the MOST efficient. If a baseball team loses 1-0 on an unearned run, you don’t say that the pitching was not good enough to win.
You’re overlooking a few key things: (1) we have been one of the very youngest teams in college basketball for the past two years; and (2) we did not have McGary last year.
If we could retain superstars for four years like your pal Izzo, I’m quite sure our style of offense would not prevent us from winning it all. Louisville, for example, had a senior Siva and juniors Russ Smith and Luke Hancock. And yet, with a super young lineup, we were a few bad calls away from beating them. You think a team with a senior Burke and junior wings like Nik and Caris wouldn’t destroy that Louisville team?
It’s also worth pointing out that in his last trip to the title game (and also in 2005), Izzo got absolutely destroyed by a great offensive team (UNC in both cases). And in 2012, that same Louisville team crushed him in the Final Four, holding them to 45 points.
I too like the idea of being able to go bigger at times when needed. But if you’re suggesting MSU’s style of play is more conducive to winning it all because they did so 14 years ago, I’d have to disagree - we have come much closer than they have recently, and with far less experienced players.
Sorry, UL crushed Izzo in the S16. That’s what I meant.
You guys both make valid and interesting arguments - that said I think we’re handicapping the team when we say “if we” and “a few bad calls”…I think whenever you get into hypotheticals or caveats you are approaching excuse territory. In my view, we have to deal with the facts as they are, not as they are more favorable to us. Are all things equal…no, but that’s life.
That being said, I do appreciate and agree to a certain extent with all of your points, but think I’ll bow out on this one…we’re talking way too much MSU for my liking, especially since I’m a guilty party.
I don’t know if there is any data on this but I’d venture a guess that there is some correlation to good defense and a teams relative experience level. This will be 3 years running where UM is pretty low on the totem pole wrt to experience. Toughness/defense are typically born out of being physicality and again, I’d wager the most physically imposing teams are more experienced because they have more mature bodies.
I will grant that looking physical and being physical are 2 entirely different things…for example, Kentucky last was physical looking but I wouldn’t call them a physically dominant defense. But the more physical you are as a player the easier it is to play with confidence and aggression.
In other words, play your 4 out 1 in on offense, but get a super athletic big that can block shots and/or rebound (now you understand my joy in getting Teske........although not super athletic he will block plenty of shots in college) and add in a big or two that can actually score in the post (hence my want for Cook).
Fortunately, it also seems like the staff is recruiting more length at the 4 spot, so hopefully we can all get what we want.
For me, both the Louisville losses and Kentucky losses came down to the backboards not defense. To put it simply, Michigan was stopping them more than they were stopping Michigan, it’s just that when they did get stops they couldn’t clean up the boards. I think you see the staff trying to get more size for that reason. For me having a 6’8" GR3 with elite rebounding would be perfect for the 4 spot, obviously a tough high end recruit to get your hands on. I wonder what JB could do with Poythress in comparison to what Calipari does.
The catch is that said 6’8" rebounder needs to be able to stroke it from deep. On offense, 3 and 4 are interchangeable. So, it’s never going to be Poythress.
The catch is that said 6'8" rebounder needs to be able to stroke it from deep. On offense, 3 and 4 are interchangeable. So, it's never going to be Poythress.
Maybe we just need that Pittsnogle…or better yet Kevin Love type PF.
I thought to a lesser extent that’s what we were moving toward with DJ Wilson and TJ Leaf, etc.