Spurs offense versus the Thunder

I haven't been particularly inspired by sports lately, at least until I saw the San Antonio Spurs' dismemberment of the Oklahoma City Thunder's defense last night. What was most interesting was that for a majority of the game--and especially in the third quarter--the Spurs ran the exact same offensive play (a high pick and roll) and the Thunder never once adjusted.

The Spurs offense worked both because of floor spacing and because the ball carrier always had at least two options. As long as he made the right decision with the ball, which a group full of veterans like the Spurs are wont to do, the offense would produce a clean look, usually a corner three. The basic setup for the play looked like this:

The screener was typically Tim Duncan, but always a big man, and the ball carrier was usually Tony Parker. First, take note of the floor spacing. The Spurs have two shooters in the short corners and a third shooter on one side of the floor. The pick and roll was almost always directed toward the side of the floor with two players, about which more later. Once Parker would get over the screen, Duncan would roll to the basket:

At this point, Parker has two options: drop the ball to Duncan who is cutting toward the basket or take the ball to the rim himself. This is where the Thunder's defensive adjustments (or lack thereof) failed miserably. They refused to switch on the pick and roll (not a horrible idea), but the on-ball defender (we'll say Russell Westbrook) always went over the screen, meaning he was immediately in a trailing position. If the man defending Duncan shows on Parker, then Parker dumps the ball to Duncan rolling to the basket. If Duncan's defender stays with him, Parker attacks with Westbrook already on his back.

The real problem is that the Thunder didn't have a defensive strategy for this, which usually meant that both options were open. Toward the end of the game, they started to trap Parker high, but that didn't work particularly well because Duncan would just slip the screen and the trap was half-hearted at best. The real brilliance of this offensive design doesn't become apparent until Parker makes the slip pass to Duncan though:

As I mentioned before, the pick and roll always went toward the side of the floor with two Spur players. Once Parker dumps the ball off to Duncan, he has a relatively clear lane to the basket. His defender had to slow Parker from driving into the lane and is now in a trailing position on Duncan. This requires help defense. Since Parker originally drove toward the side of the floor with two Spurs shooters, after Duncan slips the screen, he's running down the backside with only one Thunder defender who has a choice to make: come off his man in the corner to stop the drive or else concede an open layup. Now you can see the two options Duncan has: drive to the lane if the help defense remains on the corner shooter or kick the ball out if they pack the lane.

That's it. And I mean, the whole game. Watch the first three plays here. Despite the fact that Westbrook gets the block on the first, they are all the exact same play:



The Spurs ran that play all game and the Thunder never adjusted to it. I don't know that I've ever seen a team so hopelessly lost against a single play. You go to a zone defense. You play ball denial on Parker all the way down the court (you'd rather have him taking a corner three than Ginobili, for example). You trap hard on the pick and roll. You do anything. Scott Brooks watched as the Spurs turned into the Harlem Globetrotters against his incredibly young and talented squad.

If the Thunder are going to have any chance in this series, they're going to need to figure out how to defend this single, basic play. Fortunately for them, they have plenty of game film to correct their problems.

Penny pinching lunacy

In my professional career, I've worked for two companies, both of them magazine publishers, neither of which are run well. In four years since leaving college, I haven't--nor have any of my coworkers--been afforded a single salary raise. In fact, I took a paycut at my first job.

The first company I worked for had corporate offices in New York and investors. Every year, the business end of the company put together a financial portfolio that projected the company's earnings for its investors. Despite the fact that the company was firmly in the black--several millions of dollars every year--when it failed to reach those expectations, investors came looking for their share back. In an effort to limit those shortcomings, every employee in the company took a pay cut, budgets were slashed, and everyone was expected to do more with less. Many of these issues can be attributed to the economy and the industry--print media isn't an unsinkable ship?--but it still felt like a stupid way of doing business. Alas, that's just how business is done. My current employer doesn't deserve quite as much leniency. Budgets have been slashed to zero, employees have been laid off in favor of cheaper labor, and there are numerous ill-conceived initiatives intended to make the company money while denigrating the product, all in the name of saving a few dollars.

*****

I try to stay out of the business end of Michigan athletics. It doesn't interest me and MGoBlog covers it better than I ever could. But when news came out that Dave Brandon has decided to keep the band in Ann Arbor for the football team's season opener against Alabama at the Jerry Dome in Dallas, I got pretty annoyed.

Brandon has caught a lot of flack from the Michigan blogging community. I'm not sure their sentiments are shared by the majority of the fanbase, but since we're the most vocal part of it, that's the opinion that sticks out. First it was piped-in music in the stadium. Then it was new jerseys. Then it was the hashtag on the field. I'm sure there are things that I'm missing, but none of them has bothered me.

Brandon's job is to make money for the athletic department. Ways to do that include alternate jerseys for special occasions and catering to the segment of the fanbase that really drives the athletic department (ie, those with money). If that means playing Neil Diamond during games or whatever other jock-rock tunes that people prefer, fine. That's not affecting the final product; it's changing it. I don't begrudge Brandon for doing his job, even if I don't really agree with him.

But there's a difference between making money and saving money, the latter of which is the bane of most companies (ask US car dealers who have been skimping on their products for decades). Making money typically requires new initiatives (eg, a night game against Notre Dame that you can make and sell commemorative jerseys for). Or catering to a fanbase that probably doesn't care whether or not the marching band is playing during every timeout because they're at the game to have fun, not to consume tradition.

But not bringing the band to the opener objectively diminishes the final product. The Victors is not something to be played through a stereo, unless its blasting out on State Street on an October Saturday morning and the faint sound of the real deal is echoing in the distance. If Alabama's band is there, the game goes from a pseudo-road game to a legitimate one. This is not good for your football team. This is not good for their season. With tickets already allotted for the band, the minor, one-time expense of sending them is not even a decision: they go, because they're part of the football team or perhaps more importantly for Brandon, they're part of the product.

This is a money saving concern on an epically stupid level. Brandon's much maligned "corporate takeover" of the athletic department has been a straw house until now. The athletic department is in the business of making money and that's what Brandon was doing--hand over fist. This is penny pinching lunacy that only those fearful of an investor's wrath would concoct. But for the Michigan athletic department, not sending your marching band to the team's highest profile game of the season is the exact thing that's going to send its investors up in arms.

Dave Brandon, you're smarter than this. Don't cut corners, even if it means making your significantly in-the-black revenue stream tick down incrementally.

2012 Spring Game thoughts

Angela J. Cesere | AnnArbor.com

I will try to have some more comprehensive thoughts once I can download a torrent of the game, but the spring game left a few impressions that I should probably write down.

• Gardner. All the talk after the spring game focused on Devin Gardner's, shall we say, less that encouraging performance. After last year's spring game, I said...

  Devin, who has the size, still has little or no technique. Watching him fling a 40-yard pass from his off foot was the most Pryor-Armpunt thing I've ever seen him do. Unless the new staff can drastically improve his fundamentals, Gardner won't ever see significant playing time at Michigan, and that's disappointing.

  ...which is basically a carbon copy of what I'll say this year. Gardner's throwing motion is still unsustainable, which causes his accuracy to be inconsistent. He's not even reading the defenses particularly well. That interception: you can't make that throw. Gardner has done nothing to change my stance on his prospects: he will never see significant time at QB unless there's an injury. Next year, it's the Shane Morris Show.
• Wide receiver. Holy smokes, Michigan desperately needs these. While most people are centering their concern on the offensive and defensive lines (and rightfully so, about which more later), wide receiver is nearly as barren as the linemen depth chart. If this game doesn't turn up the volume on the Gardner-to-WR chatter, nothing will. I didn't take note of everyone out there (did Roundtree even play in the game?), but regardless, Michigan has no one to catch passes that will threaten opposing defenses.
• Offensive line. The first team offensive line looked fine, barring the two fumbled snaps, which are probably 50% on the quarterback, but beyond them, yikes. There is nothing there. If I can recall correctly, redshirt junior Erik Gunderson played a lot of right tackle in the game and reprised Mark Huyge's role in Spartans in the Backfield. Defensive linemen were routinely getting past the second unit, largely unabated. Pray for health because if not, this team is sunk.
• Defensive line. Adequate. Totally adequate. Craig Roh looked good as the strongside end. Will Campbell was completely average. Otherwise, there was nothing particularly impressive or concerning about the defensive line. It won't be as good as last year, but it won't be a major liability this year (there's almost no way this prediction doesn't come back to bite me in the ass).
• Secondary. The secondary looked pretty good actually. Greg Mattison seemed comfortable putting most of the secondary in man coverage throughout the spring game. Caveats about competition aside, the coverage down the field looked really solid, which will open things up for Mattison in the blitzing game.
• Edge issues. The defense still showed some problems maintain edge responsibilities, which ugh, but fine. I'd like to see those things ironed out by now, but last year, the coaches recognize and addressed those issues quickly.
• Bellomy. Russell Bellomy came in as the nominal #2 quarterback. Despite my desire to see Gardner move to wide receiver, I'm not sure I want Bellomy as Denard's backup. He showed good pocket presence and some ability to make plays, but he has a high school arm and only decent accuracy. He's not a quality backup yet.
• Running backs. Thomas Rawls wins the annual Spring Game award for Most Impressive Player Likely to Spend the Season on the Bench. Rawls is a power runner that showed good vision and an ability to get upfield. This year still belongs to Fitz Toussaint, though. Rawls will be a good option when Toussaint needs a breather, but he doesn't offer much that Fitz doesn't already bring to the table. The biggest concern with Rawls isn't even about his play: I'm worried the coaches will try and revive the I-formation running game behind Rawls' shoulder pads. As we saw once again in the spring game, this team is ill-equipped to run from the I formation.
  
  In other running back news, Vincent Smith is still a better blocker than you. Hoorah for consistent third-down backs.

Overall, this was a pretty nothing performance. It's much more difficult to make broad, sweeping statements when the team isn't switching coaches or quarterbacks. The game probably induced more fears than it appeased concerns, but that's probably to be expected. In reality, it really just confirmed what we already knew: the defensive line will be functional, the offensive line is thin, Gardner isn't a quarterback, and the offense is going to rely far too heavily on Denard.

That's about all I can remember from a single viewing of the game. I don't know if I'm going to picture page anything from the game or not, but I might. Frankly, I don't remember seeing anything that was particularly noteworthy schematically, but if something caught your eye, let me know and I'll take a look. If other thoughts pop up throughout subsequent viewings, I'll try and bring them up.

Izzowl

In lieu of a half-baked post about the Big Ten championship

Coaching your way to victory

I've been as critical--if not more so--of the Michigan basketball team as anyone in the M blogosphere. I've written about this before, but my philosophy about basketball aligns pretty closely with that of the now defunct FreeDarko.com. One of the primary reasons for this tendency is because before approximately 2002, my interest in basketball could be pretty easily summarized: none. FreeDarko became a formative basketball tome for me, which means I favor highly athletic, fast, improvisational basketball, the likes of which John Beilein comprehensively squashes.

There's been enough statistical analysis to support my favored brand of hoops, at least insofar as talent is concerned. In basketball, more than in any other sport, sheer talent level trumps just about everything. Sleepers, the likes of which you find a lot in football, don't really exist in any sustainable quantity in basketball. In fact, once you get to a pro level, they're basically non-existant (though Jeremy Lin is doing his best to disprove this idea). As such, the construction of the current Wolverine basketball squad is not really my style: a bunch of under the radar shooters that, frankly, are living up to their diminutive recruiting hype, and a few players with clear potential (Hardaway, Burke, Morris previously, etc).

Beilein, however, is a mastermind. As most Michigan fans will tell you, Beilein is often cited as one of the best, if not the best, coach in college basketball. What he's been able to craft out of the motley collection of players Michigan runs out on any given night is nothing short of brilliance. Given the injuries that have plagued the team's depth for the last four years and the early defections of Manny Harris and Darius Morris, to be challenging for a Big Ten title this late in this season is a level of coaching that few of Beilein's contemporaries could even imagine.

On Saturday, Michigan played a team that is objectively better than them at just about every position. And they've done that on a few occasions this season. Michigan is routinely outsized, out muscled, and out skilled. But somehow, the team keeps winning. This isn't a Tebow situation either, where the team is outplayed the whole game only to pull it out at the end. Michigan never trailed against Ohio State, one of the country's best teams, and a team that is, with Jared Sullinger, uniquely equipped to punish Michigan's greatest weakness.

At one point during the second half, Sullinger went on a dominating streak of easy buckets in the paint. The Buckeyes ran down the floor, Sullinger got position on the block, and after an easy entry pass, Sullinger would quickly and easily finish at the basket. I Tweeted at the time that Michigan should change their defensive front to a zone defense in order to limit Sullinger's touches inside and force the Buckeyes to shoot more three pointers, the likes of which they struggled to hit the whole game. Beilein called a timeout with 8:46 left in the game and subsequently came out of the huddle in man defense again. I was displeased, but from that point on, Sullinger made only two free throws (earned after an offensive rebound) and a layup. He didn't even attempt another shot until the frantic final seconds of the game.

Beilein nullified arguably the best player in the country during the final stretch of a tight game by.... I don't know, working on his players' footwork? Obviously the team didn't sell out on Sullinger, opening easier shots for the rest of the Buckeyes. So I don't know what was said, but the entire scenario was sublimely Beilein. With a team in serious foul trouble (Ohio State was in the bonus at the 12-minute mark of the second half) and a group of big men that would struggle to compete with Sullinger in any situation, Beilein stuck to his base defense and coached the team to a win. This is the epitome of a coach putting his team in the position to win.

Bullets

• Those stepback jumpers by Stu Douglass and Zack Novak late in the game were beautiful. Terrifying, then beautiful.
• Trey Burke was the difference in this game. His 5/3 assist/turnover ratio is indicative of why Michigan won this game. He effectively nullified the defense of Aaron Craft by taking care of the ball and not giving the Buckeyes anything easy in transition.
• What a great game for Tim Hardaway Jr. to show up. 13 points on 4/5 shooting? Yes please. However, I could've sworn those back-to-back free throw misses were going to lose Michigan the game. They didn't, of course, and Hardaway turned in probably his best game of the year.
• Jordan Morgan was once again spectacular guarding Sullinger. He was great at fronting Sullinger and denying passes into the post. The one complaint about Morgan's defense in the game was allowing Sullinger to spin into the lane late in the game. Early on, Morgan was overplaying Sullinger to the inside, forcing him to spin baseline where help defense was coming. He stopped doing that during the aforementioned Sullinger run in the second half and I'm not sure why. Might've been a coaching decision.
• Michigan is going to need to run layup lines for the next month. This team missed a lot of easy looks at the basket. That's how you lose basketball games.

To close the season, Michigan needs to win four games in which they'll be favored in order to have a shot at winning a Big Ten regular season title. It would be amazing if the team could get even a share of the title, but more importantly, it's clear that this team is set up to challenge for the title every year. Beilein Uber Alles, amirite?