Beilein's Time

Note: This post has needed a direction for about a week, and the Syracuse win finally afforded it that.

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

Michigan fans know well the horrors of single-elimination postseason tournaments. The various heartbreaking hockey losses make these most explicit, but even the ups and downs of recent NCAA basketball tournaments have provided their fair share of disappointment. In the end though, those losses offer the denouement of the season's story and usually a fitting end that had been building until the final buzzer. Shawn Hunwick could only hold back the flood waters for so long without support before the team crumbled. 2011's NCAA heartbreaker against Duke showed that, though Michigan's basketball team wasn't at the mountaintop yet, it was on its way with a firm foothold.

I've never been good with historical context, so what happens when your team just keeps winning? The Fab Five comparison is embarrassingly easy to the point of being fiction--even Jalen Rose is calling for the end of this comparison now. The Fab Five won largely on talent alone: that many players with that much talent will win no matter what. Coaching becomes secondary in 90% of your games and only becomes important in those crucial moments when the heat is really on, say, when you're down two points in the NCAA championship game and you don't have any timeouts left. John Beilein remains widely heralded by his contemporaries as one of the best coaches in college basketball. His teams frequently exceed expectations, both during the season and in the NCAA tournament. Steve Fisher believes his team was just beaten by Florida State.

On a seven-point Likert scale, most readers would list my pessimism about this Michigan team well on the higher end. I've criticized the team's athleticism, Trey Burke, and Nik Stauskas, but the one thing I've maintained complete faith in this season is John Beilein. A few years ago, I complained that Beilein wasn't able to bring in the athletes that would allow Michigan to compete on a national level because at the time, Laval Lucas-Perry was Michigan's idea of a savior. Things were not going well. A few years later, Beilein is surrounding by his players and being crowned with a recently cut-down net before sheepishly taking it off and bestowing the honor to Tim Hardaway Jr.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Syracuse has been smothering teams during this tournament and it was up to John Beilein to figure out how to get Michigan quality looks on offense. Though it started defensively--rebounding the ball and getting buckets in transition--it became quickly clear that Beilein had a few offensive sets that were designed to beat the 2-3 zone. The most impactful was a 1-4 offensive set with the ball at the top of the key and four Michigan players lined up in the middle of the Syracuse zone.

Though not a great screenshot of exactly how this offense was working, it displays how Michigan was able to dominate Syracuse's zone. Trey Burke enters the ball into the high post for Mitch McGary. When that happens, the two wings players sink to the corners and the other high post player (GR3) dives to the basket.

The defender in the middle of the 2-3 zone has to stay high on McGary, forcing the back to defenders to guard three Michigan players: two corner three point shooters or a layup inside. It's football's smash concept run against a 2-3 zone, and one of the more spectacular schematic deployments I've seen in basketball recently (I might be biased). How else do you think Mitch McGary led the team with 6 assists? How did he get those wide open elbow jumpers (if the middle defender in the zone sinks with the inside dive, McGary was wide open)? How do you think Caris Levert got wide-open corner threes when Syracuse has the ability to close out like this?

Michigan ran this set over and over again in the first half and there was nothing Syracuse could do to stop it. The Orange had a scheme and stuck to it. Beilein had adjustments that broke Syracuse's only solution.


Michigan now goes up against a storyline in Kevin Ware and Louisville, but this feels like John Beilein's time. He embarrassed the "Havoc" defense and solved Syracuse's dominant 2-3 zone. And late in games, when lesser coaches would be wont to stick with their hot hand in Mitch McGary, twice now, Beilein has gone offense-for-defense allowing Jordan Morgan to make defensive plays to help seal Michigan wins.

Louisville's defense presents one final challenge for Beilein: breaking a trap, something that Michigan has done successfully all year under the guiding hand of Trey Burke. Beilein will be there to right the ship if things go awry, but against Louisville, he'll act more like the terrified parent giving the car keys to his recently licensed 16-year-old: I've given you the tools and the preparation not to steer this into a ditch; do me proud.

Regardless of storylines, Louisville and Michigan present an interesting matchup, but at this point, can anyone bet against John Beilein?

On athleticism and OSU

Last week, instead of making a full blog post about random Michigan basketball pessimism, I took to Twitter:

Like a few years ago, I worry about this team against athletic opponents (Minny, IU, etc). Saw it against NC State.

Michigan's defense only works (not fouling, getting boards) when you have teams that will settle for shots. If you have opponents that attack the rim, you end up fouling a lot more frequently and giving up more OReb. Also, athletic teams rotate on defense better.

So I think this M team can finesse with most teams in the country. I see them struggling against athletic teams, even if they're not elite.

Also, think Ohio last year in the tourny. M would beat them this year, but they could run into a similar outfit later in the tourny who have more talent. Athletic teams with scoring capabilities (IU, OSU, Minny, Kansas, Louisville) really worry me.

I didn't have anything else to contribute aside from that. Anything more substantial would have required some kind of research that I a) didn't know where to begin on and b) didn't care to do if I could figure it out. So to Twitter it went, where 355 people ignored it. But in the wake of the Ohio State game, it seems appropriate to revisit those concerns.

When watching the game, it was immediately clear that athletically  OSU simply outmatches Michigan. The proof is in the pudding: Michigan's shot chart

Throughout this entire game, Michigan couldn't get near the basket. The much-hated long two-point shot became the team's go-to attack, not because they lost their composure--as story-driven announcers would have you believe--but because Michigan simply wasn't fast or strong enough to get into the lane. Nik Stauskas' disappearance comes hand-in-hand with this inability to get into the lane: as a spot-up shooter, he relies on drive-and-kick opportunities created by Trey Burke and others, but without a need to collapse on the lane, Stauskas becomes a non-factor.

It may be safe to assume that Aaron Craft was the driving force behind this denial--when he exited the game late in the first half, Michigan went on a run that would carry over to the second half--but that's reductive. Not only did Craft frustrate the Michigan offense by harassing Burke, but OSU's rotation defense was simply faster than Michigan's offense, and when the ball was eventually dropped into the post to an unguarded big man, only Mitch McGary was able to convert (yet another instance of the increasing distance between his and Jordan Morgan's capabilities).

The other place that Michigan's inferior athleticism appeared was on the glass, previously a point of dominance for Michigan. On the season, Michigan has rebounded 35% of their misses. Against OSU, that number was a mere 13% (snagging only 4 of their 29 misses).

This brings us to the future of the team this season. Michigan has 6 more games against Big Ten opponents that I deem to be more athletic (the usual customers: Minny [1], Indiana [2], OSU [1], and Illinois [2]). The problem that Michigan faces is that the good teams in the Big Ten are specifically designed to beat the precision-focused offense of Beilein. While there's only so much a team can do to prepare for the complex schemes, having sheer athleticism that can recover from mistakes defensively is the greatest attribute when trying to beat a team that's built like Michigan (see Ohio in the Tournament last year). With three of those games coming on the road, Michigan is probably more likely to end up 2-5 or 3-4 against the Big Ten elite than it is to finish with a winning record.

What people have been looking to for hope after this game was how poorly Michigan played in the first half, but OSU played nearly as badly in their second half, allowing Michigan to climb back into the game. While the common refrain is, "Well, Michigan played its worst basketball in the first half and still had a chance", OSU fans can nearly point to the same phenomenon in the second. But both of these arguments ignore the real takeaway from this game: there's probably a reason both teams played so poorly for 20 minutes. For Michigan, it was because the team was simply outmatched physically and struggled to get the looks they had previously. For OSU, it was because the shots that were falling in the first half weren't going down in the second. Ultimately those are a wash (see: 3-point margin of victory), but I'd probably rather go with the athletic superfreaks than the kids that rely on spot-up jumpers.

There was a lot of speculation about why Sunday's game was actually a positive sign for Michigan, but I couldn't look past the glaring lack of athleticism that this team still offers. As the season goes on, how Michigan responds to athletic (but raw) teams will be something to keep an eye on, but this game was a stark reminder that Michigan still has a ways to go before they can hang with the nation's true elite.