the looks have been good, the shots less so [Marc-Gregor Campredon]

Hoops Mailbag: Why Can't They Shoot, What Else Can They Do, And More Comment Count

Ace January 31st, 2020 at 10:02 AM

Believe it or not, the team's shooting issues come up either directly or indirectly a few times. Let's dive in.

Is there a chance that our 3pt shooting going in the toilet is at all related to the coaching change?  Meaning, is is possible that Beilein would have devoted hours to shooting form and mechanics while Juwan is focused more on addressing other things (aka post defense)?

Adam
Chicago, IL
AC1997

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a small impact on shooting because of practice focus—John Beilein is famously maniacal about fundamentals, after all. That doesn't nearly cover the gap in shooting from last year to this year, however. Michigan was in line to have an excellent shooting team this year regardless of the coach; then their top two outside shooters left for the NBA and the third got hurt.

It helps to look at a visual of last year's three-point distribution compared to this year's. Below is a table showing the top shooters by share of the team's total three-point attempts on the season, followed by their three-point percentage.

2018-19 2019-20
Jordan Poole: 24% share/made 37% Eli Brooks: 19%/38%
Iggy Brazdeikis: 17%/39% Franz Wagner: 17%/29%
Isaiah Livers: 15%/43% Isaiah Livers: 12%/50%
Zavier Simpson: 12%/31% David DeJulius: 12%/36%
Charles Matthews: 12%/30% Zavier Simpson: 11%/32%
Jon Teske: 9%/30% Jon Teske: 10%/27%
Eli Brooks: 6%/29% Adrien Nunez: 8%/27%
David DeJulius: 2%/6% Brandon Johns: 5%/29%

While the 2018-19 squad was not a good shooting team by Beilein standards, the top three shooters formed a dangerous trio, and at least two of them were on the court at nearly all times. This year's starting lineup with Isaiah Livers injured features only one reliable shooter. Franz Wagner's struggles have really hurt. The team has pushed more shots to marginal shooters; this year's Brandon Johns attempts are coming in the competitive portion of games, while last year's David DeJulius chucks were not.

When you remove Livers from this year's team, you get into non-shooter territory in a hurry. That hurts everyone's shooting; when teams can all but ignore three players as outside threats, they can clog the paint without giving up open looks to the primary shooters.

Given the personnel, I'm not ready to make a judgment on Juwan Howard's impact on shooting. This team generates plenty of good looks. Other than Simpson, who was equally bad under Beilein, nobody has obvious mechanical issues—Wagner's shots, for example, look like they should go down.

A portion of Michigan's shooting struggles is due to roster makeup. Another portion is due to rotten luck. (The dirty secret about college basketball stats: a full season is still a small sample size.) Compared to those two, any coaching impact is minor.

[Hit THE JUMP for the rest of the mailbag.]

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

a consistently aggressive Brandon Johns would be a major development [Campredon]

While there's been noted improvement over the last few games, I'd certainly suggest Michigan not be the second-worst defensive team in the Big Ten.

The team's defensive numbers are especially bad when Livers isn't in the lineup. Wagner and DeJulius, in particular, stand to improve as on-ball defenders. Everyone needs to get better at communicating—there have been too many missed assignments, leaving Jon Teske to clean up a lot of backdoor cuts lest the opponent get free layups.

If Livers is out for any length of time, the biggest key to a turnaround is Brandon Johns playing with confidence. We saw that against Nebraska; too often he fades against better opponents. He has all the requisite talent and, for the moment, a great opportunity to showcase that. He needs to seize it.

Johns's usage has actually gone down a couple percentage points since Livers suffered his initial injury, even when removing bodybag games from the two samples, when it should be holding steady or going up. He's also been much less of a factor on the boards. Tuesday night was a nice step forward; hopefully that gives him some confidence.

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

First, the Cole Bajema question: I have to think this is about finding a way to get a redshirt on him like John Beilein did with DJ Wilson. As discussed on this week's WTKA roundtable, this is a more feasible option than we first thought. I would guess this choice is coming from Bajema's end; he'd probably rather use this year of eligibility on a season he'll play more if there was even a decent chance he was going to remain behind Nunez.

I also maybe wouldn't read into Baird playing over Bajema as much as Nunez continuing to get minutes over him. In this particular game, Michigan needed someone who knew where to be on defense and could also direct others; Baird is much more likely to be at that point than Bajema, who may still be in the overwhelmed period that most freshmen go through.

As for the foul differential, I wouldn't take too much away from it. Michigan had a 24-12 advantage in free throw attempts over Nebraska, but eight of those came in the final four minutes. The Huskers are a small team with bad interior defense, not something the Wolverines are going to run into very often. The one bit of that uptick that could be sustainable, in my opinion, is Brandon Johns getting seven attempts; again, that'll require him maintaining his aggressiveness.

One area of promise that didn't produce free throws but could in the future was Wagner attacking the rim with aplomb. He got an and-one for his lone shot at the line, but his repeated forays to the rim coupled with his slick footwork and long arms should allow him to draw more fouls.

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

more of these needed? [Campredon]

Ace, 

I hope you're doing well. I've noticed that Juwan doesn't really use his timeouts. 1 against Nebrasketball, 3 against Illinois, 2 against PSU, 3 against Minnesota. He did use 4 against Iowa. 

Is this a thing? 

Thanks,
Carl

I can't find a stat that tracks timeout usage, though I can get a rough one from Synergy by looking at percentage of possessions that occur after a timeout. Michigan is pretty much dead center at 156th nationally. As the numbers in the questions indicate, it really depends on the game. I haven't found myself getting frustrated by Howard's use of timeouts or lack thereof. Michigan's offense performs better in overall halfcourt play than they do after timeouts; while they may get to draw up a play, they also allow the defense to get set and choose their matchups.

This question gives me a chance to point out a great use of a timeout in the Nebraska game that I'd like Howard to adopt. Michigan ran the clock down as much as they could on their final possession of the first half, getting a Teske tip-in with 4.2 seconds left. Fred Hoiberg instantly called a timeout; I'm guessing he was in a ref's ear earlier in the possession regarding his intention to call one.

That got his team a cheap possession when in most cases you see the clock expire. As it turned out, 4.2 seconds was long enough for Cam Mack to drive coast to coast for a layup. (It was not Michigan's finest defensive moment.) Nobody is going to jump down the throat of a coach who lets the clock run in that scenario, but I love Hoiberg's desire to maximize possessions.

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

keep this up, please [Campredon]

Based on the last couple weeks, I’m considering the rest of the season to be a bit of a lost cause. If they make the tournament they’re a quick out.

Working under that premise, what are we looking for during the rest of the season? Are we looking to see if the underclassmen, Wagner and Johns specifically, will become the stars of next year’s team, or merely solid role players (think MSU’s McQuaid and Goins) to support the monster incoming class?

Stay healthy man.

Eric Coughlin

I still hold a flicker of hope that if Livers returns to full health this team can be a tough out in March. That said, it's probably healthy to start thinking this way if you haven't been keeping an eye on 2020-21 all year like, say, most of the staff here.

This is audition time. Wagner appears to be in the right mindset, even if the outside shots aren't falling yet, and his skill is apparent—Brian discussed his potential at length after the Nebraska game. He's going to play a major role on next year's team. So will Livers. Almost everything else is up for grabs, especially if Josh Christopher signs with the 2020 class.

I'm watching for signs of progress; many of those were covered in my last mailbag. Even though it didn't go well from a passing perspective, I liked seeing Wagner step up as a primary creator against Nebraska with Simpson out. There's a lot of possessions to be had with Simpson graduating; someone needs to show they can do something with them other than launch a shot.

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

Hey Ace,

Should we be concerned about roster balance next year if nothing else changes (ie we don’t get Josh Christopher). We basically would have 3 guards (DDJ, Eli, Zeb) for 2 spots. Very similar to this year without the experience of Simpson.

Are we leaning too hard into bigs (next year Caselton, Dickinson, Todd, Williams, Livers all with play 4/5) and not enough into guards/wings?

I'm not sure I agree with the premise here. While Castleton, Hunter Dickinson, Isaiah Todd, and Brandon Johns are all in the 4/5 category, Livers can very much play the three, as can Terrance Williams, who's 6'6"/215 and projects to have a solid outside shot. Wagner is a wing who could potentially slide down to the two. I'm assuming one of Nunez or Bajema will still be around for wing depth; they could also play a little shooting guard. Jace Howard may come in as a walk-on but he's ranked over 50 spots above where Nunez was as a recruit.

Given all three guards—DeJulius, Brooks, and Zeb Jackson—are combo guards, I'm not worried about backcourt depth even if Christopher doesn't end up in Ann Arbor. There might be an awkward fit somewhere if there's an injury to one of those three; that's generally going to be the case if you lose a rotation player on a college team.

Meanwhile, three guards for two spots is plenty—many of us are trying to find more minutes for DeJulius this season. There's enough versatility up and down the projected roster that I'd be surprised if depth became a problem in 2020-21.

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

me, trying to answer this question [Campredon]

This is more complicated to answer than it could be since four-star freshman Jalen Wilson, who would've stuck with Michigan had Beilein stayed, went down to a broken ankle in the second game (and his third minute) of the season.

Assuming (bad) injury luck stays the same, I'm not sure things are too much different. Michigan was 24th in adjusted offensive efficiency last year; this year they're 31st despite a worse group of shooters and the loss of Livers. The team is, in fact, shooting the exact same three-point percentage as last year and only a tick below the year prior—incidentally, the three years Simpson has started at point guard. Maybe Beilein gets more from the perimeter players; if we're giving him that, though, he probably doesn't get as much offense from Teske.

While the defense certainly seems like it'd benefit from Luke Yaklich being around, Texas's has taken a step back this year, and Michigan lost arguably the best perimeter defender in the country in Charles Matthews. They'd probably be doing better than they are this year by sheer continuity; another top-five, or even top-25, finish may be unrealistic given the personnel and injuries.

It seems like one factor for Beilein leaving was that a team he initially thought would be loaded for a Final Four run was going to be in more of a transition year. Dude left for the Cavs after withdrawing his name from the running for the Pistons job the year prior. Something changed in there, and I believe a big part of it was how much he thought he could get out of the roster. I don't believe this year's team would look too much different with Beilein at the helm unless this alternate universe also eliminates injuries, which makes for a somewhat pointless exercise. Meanwhile, the 2020 recruiting class would look significantly different.

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

the woooooooooooooorst [Patrick Barron]

I'll take the sweet release of a cyanide pill, which is a much quicker way to go than death by a million hits to the jimmies.

Comments

Zenogias

January 31st, 2020 at 10:49 AM ^

The dirty secret about college basketball stats: a full season is still a small sample size.

Thank you, Ace. This is one of the hardest things for people to wrap their heads around.

befuggled

January 31st, 2020 at 11:11 AM ^

I'd be curious as to what point people thought the number of games played *stops* being a small sample size.

I mean, football? Impossible to have anything but a small sample size. But do baseball or NBA seasons start to get there? Or would we have to look at player careers? Even there it'd have to be players with long careers who've created the stats necessary to evaluate them (i.e., skill players in football, long-term NBA or MLB players).

Zenogias

January 31st, 2020 at 12:04 PM ^

It's often many hundreds of samples before you start being able to make decent inferences. Certainly an entire baseball season is enough for some things, though it's also worth remembering that these samples aren't IID and can contain biases that you'd want to control for, which complicates things.

Almost anything that looks just at *games* is going to be a small sample in any sport, even baseball. But once you start looking at shots, or plate appearances, or plays, you can start to get your samples over a full season up into something potentially worthwhile.

Tacopants

January 31st, 2020 at 2:27 PM ^

The top 7 3 point shooters on the team have >= 30 attempts now. Johns is at 28. As a team Michigan has taken 483 3's and has made 34%. if we exclude Livers (injury, 30/60) the team average falls to 32%.

 

If we assume the shot attempts are reasonably distributed across players (which they mostly are, Nunez's 41 attempts are the only real head scratcher) then it's a reasonable picture of a average 3 point shooting team. This season the NCAA average is 33.3%. This also fits into what we can see on the court and intuitively makes sense: when you remove the best 3pt shooter on an average 3pt shooting team and distribute his shots to the other players the 3pt performance of the  team will suffer.

 

Here's another data point: FT% is a good indication of 3pt%, and that same group minus Nunez has >= 30 FTA. Michigan as a team is shooting 70% on FTs (NCAA average: 69%), their opponents are at 67% FT% and 32% 3pt%, both slightly below average.

 

If it's walking like a duck, quacking like a duck, and shooting 3 pointers like a NCAA average sized duck, it's probably a duck.

CityOfKlompton

January 31st, 2020 at 12:13 PM ^

Dude left for the Cavs after withdrawing his name from the running for the Pistons job the year prior

Do we have a source on this? I keep seeing people bring this up, but unless I missed something, I believe that was not the case. I recall Beilein saying he would have been interested in Detroit if they had offered him the job, but they never did.

jmblue

January 31st, 2020 at 12:16 PM ^

Beilein absolutely had teams that didn't shoot that well, and even some of his good shooters would go through brutal slumps - THJ's whole sophomore year was rough, and even Duncan Robinson (!) had cold stretches.  

shoes

January 31st, 2020 at 12:21 PM ^

the stats again point out to me that Teske should not be taking 3s. He almost never takes a bad one yet he was 30 percent last year, and is 27 percent this year and we are less likely to rebound his misses than almost anyone else's.

AC1997

January 31st, 2020 at 1:19 PM ^

I only slightly disagree.  I think Teske has to take about 2 threes per game for two reasons:

First - he might be "on" that day and then he can take a couple more.  

Second, and more importantly, it keeps the defense honest.  Despite his pedestrian numbers, they are usually covering him out there (as compared to how Teske defended some of his recent opponents).

If he takes three open looks and makes one of them you can probably live with it.  Taking 5-6 is not where you want things to go.  Same applies to Simpson.  

snarling wolverine

January 31st, 2020 at 12:32 PM ^

Beilein's offense was very good at generating open 3-pointers, but to the extent that you can coach shooting, he doesn't seem to be particularly good at it, the famous "Beilein Ball" notwithstanding.  We were downright bad at shooting threes his first few years, and just average most of the time:

2007-08 : 31.2%

2008-09: 33.4%

2009-10: 29.9% (ouch)

2010-11: 35.2%

2011-12: 35.0%

2012-13: 38.5%

2013-14: 40.2%

2014-15: 35.9%

2015-16: 38.0%

2016-17: 38.5%

2017-18: 35.7%

2018-19 : 34.2%

So only four years out of 12 did we top 36% (which isn't even that great of a percentage) and only once did we hit 39%.

And our current team is shooting . . . 34.2%.

TrueBlue2003

January 31st, 2020 at 1:30 PM ^

Yeah, I never bought that whole story line. He valued good shooters when he recruited more than most coaches, especially early in his career when he recognized how valuable three point shooting was before most coaches. But I don't think he had any special impact on their shooting while he coached them.  There's only four years (tops) and limited instructional time.  Not to mention that guys come in with 1,000s of hours of shooting, you don't really want to tweak in such a short period of time.

What would be an interesting analysis is to compare how he impacted his shooters over the course of their careers with him, compared to the national average.  How much did his players improve on average on 3 pointers and FTs from Freshman to Soph to Jr to Sr year compared to the P5 average?

My guess is that it would not be significantly different.  I would even argue he probably wasted too much time on that for most of career as he ignored defense.

NoHeartAnthony

January 31st, 2020 at 11:26 PM ^

You have to take volume into account.  In general, it's tougher to shoot a higher percentage at a higher volume.  And it's easier to shoot a higher percentage at a lower volume.  Which could explain why Beilein's teams always excelled at 2pt%.  

For 3PA/FGA over Beilein's tenure, here's how Michigan compared to other NCAA teams:

2019 - 142
2018 - 59
2017 - 17
2016 - 19
2015 - 39
2014 - 34
2013 - 144
2012 - 8
2011 - 13
2010 - 12
2009 - 6
2008 - 41

 

TrueBlue2003

January 31st, 2020 at 2:06 PM ^

Yeah, how is that not mentioned?  Also, how do we have an entire question about three point shooting plummeting under Howard, when in fact, it's identical to last year.

I'm sure the national average three point % has decreased this year with the line moving back. If so, relative to the average, Michigan has improved its three point shooting this year, right? 

I'm sure it'll keep going down a little bit with Livers out, unless Wagner turns it around big time but the assertion Michigan is worse this year has no merit thus far.

TrueBlue2003

February 1st, 2020 at 4:25 PM ^

But why discount the red hot shooting?  The article even mentions how small an entire season is in terms of sample size.  So a hot shooting stretch in the beginning is a relatively tiny sample size as is a stretch of a few cold shooting games recently. Why get concerned about a cold stretch when there was an equally long hot stretch the simply evens out to the same as last year?  The entire premise of a question wondering whether Juwan Howard is responsible for a poor shooting stretch, despite being the coach during the hot shooting stretch is absurd.

Michigan is struggling lately because: 1. it's a tiny sample size and they're going through a slump/cold shooting stretch 2. they're down their best shooter and 3. the line has moved back so the "mean" to which they have regressed after cooling down was going to be lower than last year, even if their shooting acumen/skill was on par with last years team.

 

AC1997

January 31st, 2020 at 1:21 PM ^

Hot Take.....

Luke Yaklich was an over-rated aspect of our defensive ratings the last two years.  The majority of that performance was due to Charles Mathews being so damn good at locking down the opponent's best player.  

Picture games this year against Illinois (x2), Oregon, MSU, and PSU with Matthews guarding their best players.  

TrueBlue2003

January 31st, 2020 at 2:03 PM ^

Yakich no doubt had some excellent defensive players who deserve credit as well but you're completely incorrect that the majority of it was Matthews.  Simpson and Teske were lock down and have both taken a step back, largely due to scheme.  Yaklich made Duncan Robinson into a decent college defender and a guy that could play in the NBA - against all odds.

Don't read too much into Texas "taking a step back" this year, because of course they've taken a step back.

Last year they had Jaxson Hayes who was the 8th pick in the draft, had a monster 10+% block rate and was a very good rebounder.  They had seniors in Kerwin Roach and Dylan Osetkowski who knew what they were doing (and Osetkowski was also a great rebounder).

This year Texas has very bad players, plain and simple.  Only so much you can do with that.

Also, last year Texas' offense was good at taking care of the ball. They were 37th best in TO rate.  This year they're atrocious at 272nd.  Do you know what happens when an offense turns the ball over?  The opposing team gets very high percentage fast break opportunities that the defense can't do much about.  I read an article I think by kenpom that showed that one of the most impactful stats on a teams defense was the number of steals its offense gives up.

There is one aspect of Yaklich's defense that was bound to be less successful this year and is also something that is biting Howard: a very strong aversion to allowing three pointers.  Yaklich correctly implemented a system at Michigan that avoided three pointers because it was becoming too valuable of a shot for college offenses relative to other shots.  With the backed up three point line, it's unclear that such aggressive three point avoidance is still the right thing to do.  Texas does that very well, similar to Yak's teams at Michigan.  They're 7th best this year but like Michigan is seeing, that's potentially not as valuable as it was last year.

So Yaklich, like Howard, is having to adapt strategies a little bit in the new era of three pointers being more acceptable to give up.

umchicago

January 31st, 2020 at 2:22 PM ^

you may be right on defending the 3 in general.  obviously, you don't want to give up wide open 3s, but with the line moved back, maybe you don't have to focus as much on avoiding them.

perhaps that is why there is a helluva lot more post touches going on in basketball, especially in the big ten.

Jimmyisgod

January 31st, 2020 at 2:22 PM ^

Dead legs.  Look at the minutes our guys have been playing in the last few weeks and there's your answer. Franz is a slight true freshman playing 37 minutes a game of late, that's insane and completely explains his shooting slump to me.

Jonesy

January 31st, 2020 at 2:22 PM ^

If Beilein was still around our recruiting class would be different but it might have walker kessler and that guy who chose virgina instead (and still zeb). He was setup to have a pretty good class.

username03

January 31st, 2020 at 2:41 PM ^

Why do people keep talking about Bajema redshirting? When was the last time there was a relevant, non-injury related 5th year player? Better than the 6th man (Max Bielfeldt) on a mediocre Indiana team is the relevant bar.

L'Carpetron Do…

January 31st, 2020 at 4:17 PM ^

AHhhh, this is mgoblog at its finest - its nose waaaay too deep into the advanced stats, looking at the games/stats on paper instead of what's on the court. With this roster, Beilein does much more and this team is not a bubble team. He did it numerous times at Michigan. This isn't a knock on Juwan, it's just that Beilein was the best pure coach in the college game. His struggles in the NBA apparently made everyone forget that. I know he lost a lot from a likely Final 4 squad but the cupboard was far from bare - the idea of leading a roster with Simpson, Teske, LIvers, Franz and Jalen Wilson can't be as off-putting as everyone thinks it is. Having to constantly re-recruit those positions is what drove him out of college ball.

WIth Beilein they don't drop that Oregon game, the game at Iowa and the Penn State game. AND definitely not the Illinois Horror last week.  

Under him this team would be better on defense and run a slower more methodical and perhaps more efficient offense. And a lot of the game management stuff likely wouldn't have happened. Juwan has had a streak of bad luck but I think Beilien is a better overall coach and would have handled these bumps better.

I'd be really curious to see how well Juwan would've done with the Cavaliers actually. I wonder if he's a better pro coach, and Beilein is the better college coach. 

jmblue

January 31st, 2020 at 5:42 PM ^

I love Beilein but I think you're romanticizing his era a bit.  He missed the tourney three times in 12 years (and none of them was close) and had multiple bubble teams that just made it, one of which needed to go to the Dayton play-in game.

Beilein had plenty of heartbreaking and/or inexplicable losses.  Our 2013 national runner-up team had a shocker of a loss at PSU (as did last year's team).  I don't think having him on the bench automatically turns this year's close losses into wins.  In fact, one knock on Beilein was that his teams regularly started slowly.

Also, you can't assume that having Beilein at the helm would mean no injuries this season.  Wilson suffered a season-ending injury in November and obviously Livers is out.