Michigan's Three-Point Shooting: Mind The Gap Comment Count

Ace


I prefer the shot on the left. So does Beilein. [Marc-Gregor Campredon]

After the Nebraska evisceration, I wanted to take a closer look at something we discussed on this week's podcast. Michigan generated 12 more three-point attempts than the Huskers, which added to the growing pile of statistical evidence that the Wolverines have undergone a fundamental shift—not on offense, but on defense. John Beilein gave the money quote on it after the Purdue game:

We’ve made a conscious decision to defend the three-point line, knowing that a tough two is much better to give up than an open three, which we were giving up like crazy in our earlier struggles.

The key number to look at is 3PA/FGA: the percentage of each team's field goal attempts that come from beyond the arc. The offense is shooting threes at the usual Beilein offense rate: 45.3%, 16th nationally. Before this year, Beilein's Michigan defenses haven't been good at preventing opponent three-point looks; his best finish in 3PA/FGA was 108th in 2014, and most of his M teams have been in the 200 range.

This season, Michigan opponents are attempting just 29.0% of their field goals from beyond the arc. That puts the Wolverines tenth in the country.

The shift in defensive philosophy, likely a product of adding Billy Donlon to the staff, has created a massive gap in points generated from the three-point line between Michigan and their opponents. Critically, the Wolverines aren't forcing shots to make it happen. I put together a video of Michigan's three-point attempts (two garbage-time attempts excised) against Nebraska with freeze-frames just before the point of release; there are only a couple questionable shots among the 25:

I did the same for Nebraska's shots. While they had a few wide open looks, Michigan did a much better job of closing out on Husker shooters than vice versa, and that's not even the most telling part of this video—that would be the length of the video itself. What's not in there is the number of times Michigan defenders ran potential shooters off the line, forcing them to take those tough twos instead.

Even if Nebraska had hit their open looks, they had little hope of keeping up with Michigan's offense. Their second three-point attempt of the game came with under five minutes left in the first half; by that point, M had opened up a 20-point lead while shooting 8-for-12 on triples.

As conference champion Purdue found out, it's hard to close the three-point gap on Michigan with two-pointers, even when they're going in at a relatively high rate. It helps, of course, that Beilein's offense also generates great looks inside the arc; Michigan is 12th nationally in two-point percentage. This leaves opponents in a bind. Do they try to match Michigan three-for-three, even though the Wolverines have superior shooters to almost any team they face? Or do they run their normal offense and hope to either hit twos at a remarkable rate or get an off game from Michigan's shooters?

I'm not sure there's a good answer.

[Hit THE JUMP to see the numbers behind the three-point gap.]

As with most positive developments this season, this one took hold after the first Nebraska game. Removing the body-bag nonconference games shows a stark contrast in Michigan's ability to create a decided edge from beyond the arc. In that 11-game sample, the Wolverines created just a three points per game edge in scoring on three-pointers despite taking over seven more attempts per game than their opponents. Other than the Iowa game, they also had a tough time generating an advantage in attempts in the early goings of conference play.

  M 3PM M 3PA Opp 3PM Opp 3PA 3P Margin (Points)
Marquette 9 23 4 15 15
SMU 13 31 6 16 21
SCar 2 26 4 15 -6
VT 10 27 6 14 12
Texas 6 19 5 16 3
UCLA 14 26 15 24 -3
Iowa 12 35 11 19 3
PSU 6 21 8 19 -6
Maryland 8 21 10 15 -6
Illinois 7 14 9 14 -6
Nebraska 11 22 9 18 6
TOTAL 98 265 87 185 +33
AVERAGE 8.9 24.1 7.9 16.8 +3.0

The last 13 games have been a completely different story.

  M 3PM M 3PA Opp 3PM Opp 3PA 3P Margin (Points)
Wisconsin 10 21 6 16 12
Illinois 6 21 2 12 12
Indiana 11 20 7 13 12
MSU 7 26 5 11 6
OSU 13 35 4 19 27
MSU 10 21 5 16 15
Indiana 8 22 4 19 12
Wisconsin 9 23 3 16 18
Minnesota 9 26 5 13 12
Rutgers 10 31 6 16 12
Purdue 11 26 5 16 18
Northwestern 8 22 5 13 9
Nebraska 14 27 2 15 36
TOTAL 126 321 59 195 +201
AVERAGE 9.7 24.7 4.5 15.0 +15.5

The numbers for Michigan's offense are very similar. The defense, however, is ceding two fewer 3PAs per game, and opponents are having a tougher time hitting those attempts. Some of this is statistical noise; opponents were making threes at an unsustainable rate regardless of quality of looks earlier this season, and there's been some serious regression to the mean lately. There's been a noticeable uptick in the quality of M's perimeter defense, however, and I believe that is the primary factor driving these remarkable splits.

Over the last 13 games, Michigan is generating a margin of over 15 points per game from beyond the arc; they've outscored their opponent on three-pointers in each of those 13 games. While they use more possessions on three-pointers than their opponents, their red-hot two-point shooting makes it extremely difficult for most opponents to cover that considerable gap.

By applying the same principles to the defense that have made Beilein's offenses so good for so long, Michigan has become an exceptionally dangerous team. Using Bart Torvik's adjusted efficiency numbers, which come out very closely to KenPom's, Michigan has been a top-ten team nationally since the first Nebraska game. The key has been stingy perimeter defense unlike any we've seen from Beilein in the past.

Happy learned how to putt.

Comments

dragonchild

March 7th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^

Oversimplifying the math, if Michigan makes 40% of their threes, that's 0.4 x 3 = 1.2 PPS.  If you try to match that 3-for-2, you need to hit those 2-pointers at a 60% clip.  Across the whole team.  Or make up the difference with and-1s, but Michigan is a foul-averse team.

So I guess the key to victory is that Michigan will try to sustain 1.2 PPS, win the turnover battle, hold you under 1.0 PPS and bet that rebounding won't be enough to make up the difference.  Which finally works now that they're not letting opponents match them 3-for-3 (argh Hancock argh), whereas they used to. . . well frankly I don't know what the heck they were doing, but whatever it was, it wasn't working.  This. . . this I like.

surlyman

March 7th, 2017 at 4:11 PM ^

No question guys like Duncan and MAAR have adjusted how they guard the three point line.  We still get lost of some of those switches (especially DJ and Mo), but overall the defensive change is remarkable.

MGlobules

March 7th, 2017 at 4:59 PM ^

is huge. Maximize your three-threat to all five guys, minimize the other team's: profit. I really think Beilein is a very bright guy, and a likely HOF'er.

I'm also sticking to my thesis that Beilein teams, given all that's on each kid's plate in terms of scheme, are likely to often struggle early in the season. And sneak up on people late and kill them. 

Richard75

March 7th, 2017 at 5:29 PM ^

No disrespect but don't see how he remotely has an HOF chance at present. Would need to win a national title at some point. Guys like Carril and Chaney got in because there's (understandably) a different standard for schools outside the power conferences. It's hard to say this is one of the best coaches of all time when Bill Frieder and Steve Fisher had significantly higher Big Ten winning percentages at Michigan.

UMfan21

March 7th, 2017 at 6:14 PM ^

his tenure and shear number of career wins counts for something. Boeheim is a good comparison. until he won his NC there was debate whether he deserved to get in or not. Ultimately that NC made the choice easy. Beilein is at a very similar spot (and was SO close to that NC win). he should definitely be in the HOF discussion.

TrueBlue2003

March 7th, 2017 at 8:26 PM ^

have like twice as many career wins as Beilein?  And probably a much higher win percent?

EDIT: decided to look it up myself and Boeheim has almost EXACTLY 2x the number of wins.  He is 1003-355 and Beilein is 502-309.  Beilein has been to the tourney 10 times with 1 Final Four.  Boeheim been to the tourney 32 times (!!!) with 5 Final Fours and a natty, plus 10 Big East regular season titles and 5 conf tourny titles.

Beilein is nine years younger so he could close the gap in some of these categories but was nowhere near where Boeheim was nine years ago and has a lot of champtionships to go to be in the same conversation.

UMfan21

March 8th, 2017 at 1:18 AM ^

probably. rewind boeheim career to just before his NC. add in all of Beilein's wins. I think they would be similar. A National championship cements it, but I think Beilein is worth a discussion.

TrueBlue2003

March 8th, 2017 at 3:07 PM ^

the numbers I'm using are here:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/coaches/john-beilein-1.html

which includes D1 only: Canisius, Richmond, WVU and Michigan.  It was just the first result that came up.

So I think it would be fair to inlclude his stints at Le Moyne and Nazareth if it's the "college basketball hall of fame" instead of the "d1 college basketball hall of fame".  

In which case, his wins volume alone would be on pace with Boeheim. So the original point stand from a pure wins volume standpoint.  I'm not sure that longevity is the primary criteria though, and I would weight those non-D1 wins a bit differently.  Probably has quite a bit of work to do in terms of conference titles and/or final fours to be HoF material, but I also don't know what the bar is to get in.

TrueBlue2003

March 7th, 2017 at 5:58 PM ^

that John Beilein, who built his entire career running an offense exploiting the efficiency of the three point shot, wouldn't have previously run his defense to prevent the thing he knows to be so deadly?

And that suddenly in the middle of his millionth season as a coach, they would decide to try guarding that shot?

UMfan21

March 7th, 2017 at 6:17 PM ^

his philosophy in the past was to run defenses that generate turnovers (1-3-1, zones with hard hedges, etc). a turnover is better than contesting a shot any day. the problem is, over the last 30 years, teams have figured him out. coaching is about evolving. he's now evolving to a different strategy until it stops working. Maybe in a few years we go back to the 1-3-1 and heavy zone. it's not like he just woke up one day and said "dang, we ought to defend the 3 point line". it's more like "what can these kids grasp and execute at a higher level than they execute right now"

TrueBlue2003

March 7th, 2017 at 10:09 PM ^

before he came to Michigan (and into the first two years here), because he had such horrid athletes that they figured they'd run a gimmick defense that teams don't typically prepare for to catch them offguard for some turnovers.

Once Big Ten coaches eviserated it, he scrapped the 1-3-1 and went man. At which point, you'd think there would have been more focus on defending the three.  I'm not faulting him or anything, I'm just pointing out that it's curious.  His comments and the stats do suggest this was a major and fairly sudden shift in defensive focus.

One of things I've been super impressed with Beilein is his willingness to change and adapt while at Michigan and this is an interesting thing for him to adapt to in his tenth year, given what his own offensive philosophy has been.  Going back and looking at the numbers, college basketball as whole (like basketball at all levels) is becoming better at threes and shooting them more.  So as teams are running offenses more like his, he's having to adapt to defend them!

UMfan21

March 8th, 2017 at 1:21 AM ^

not sure he "became humble" suddenly. recall before Bacari and Jordan were hired the team had stagnated. he cleaned house except for Meyer. Beilein is a loyal guy, but he's a smart people manager. He is not Lloyd Carr (loyal to a fault), nor is he Harbaugh. somewhere in between, he knows when it's time to end business relationships and bring in new talent.

jmblue

March 8th, 2017 at 9:19 AM ^

It makes sense if you consider that we shoot more threes than our opponents.  Beilein was ahead of the curve in this regard.  The 3-pointer has now become a standard part of offense but it wasn't, for a lot of teams, earlier.

 

Jonesy

March 7th, 2017 at 7:55 PM ^

I watched both those videos and Nebraska's threes were more open than ours, they just bricked them all (and yes had fewer of them).

Year of Revenge II

March 8th, 2017 at 6:08 AM ^

True, the only stat that really matters in the end is W/L.

While you make an excellent point, the team has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in two of those games, and a more representative W/L stat reflective of their increased level of play really should be 10-3, which would be a little more consistent stat-wise,