this picture makes you realize that garza was not always a centaur[Marc-Gregor Campredon]

Unverified Voracity Says Four Of Five Ain't Bad Comment Count

Brian February 16th, 2021 at 3:09 PM

Hoop Vision on Luka Garza. Iowa's just down the road for the basketball program:

Would they even have helped? In year one Juwan Howard had a couple of high profile recruiting reversals that stung: losing Josh Christopher to Arizona State and Isaiah Todd to the G-League. This was depressing at the time; for obvious reasons it no longer is. We've talked about Christopher some. Todd's been on the shelf as the NBA figures out what the hell to do with the G-League, but his Ignite team recently started taking the floor. Early returns via Sam Vecenie:

Teams remain unenthused by Isaiah Todd

Todd didn’t bring much to the table in the opener. He had a couple of nice defensive possessions but overall didn’t look like he was at the same level of play as most of the other guys out there. He played 17 minutes but had two points and three rebounds on 1-for-4 from the field. The 6-foot-9 forward was considered one of the top-five players in his class when he was an underclassman in high school but steadily dropped down the composite rankings through his prep career as he started to float out on the perimeter while not particularly improving as a shooter or decision-maker.

“There’s no way I’d draft him right now,” one scout said. “I wish him the best, but he didn’t look ready for pro basketball.”

The G League is a tough, highly competitive league. There’s no shame in a teenager not being ready to play in such an atmosphere. But it also goes to show just how far off Todd is from contributing to an NBA situation if he can’t even contribute positively to this one. I have Todd outside the top 80 on my board.

There's obviously a big gap between G-League teams and college. I wonder about the counterfactual where he's on this year's roster. Whose minutes is he taking? Terrance Williams, probably. Brandon Johns, maybe. Livers, Wagner, Brown: no.

If you're looking at one-and-done types the portal is likely to cough up just as many quality options as high school recruiting.

Also! This got slipped into an eval of Todd on Prospective Insight:

Much more effective when he plays inside-out, but doesn’t embrace contact; Subpar free-throw shooter; Was viewed as having one of the highest upsides entering high school, but has largely failed to improve substantially and became enamored with demonstrating his improving perimeter skill-set; Weak and often unwilling passer to date; Plus shot-blocker (more from the weak-side); Solid student; His mother is substantially more vocal than he is; Needs to add upper-body strength, tighten his handle, refine his perimeter shot, and embrace contact.

Grimace dot emoji.

[After THE JUMP: the spot you want to be in]

The spot you want to be. Brendan Quinn on the Wisconsin game:

Isaiah Livers, the team’s senior captain, remembers the moment like this: “Our leader, the boss — he was talking about, ‘This is where we want to be!'”

Really? This was where Michigan wanted to be? Facing its largest halftime deficit of the year? Trying to maneuver through the malaise of a three-week layoff? At Kohl Center, of all places, a building where No. 21 Wisconsin had won 19 of its last 21 games and was 72-17 under coach Greg Gard?

Howard reassured his team that everything was fine.

“Nobody was pointing fingers,” Livers recalled. “No one was upset. We just knew we were down 12.”

I don't agree with your police work. Alex Kirschner looks at home court advantage in Slate, and I am confused about the question in the sub-headline ("Home-field advantage is real. Why?") given the data cited in the article. I'm excluding various bubble situations cited since they are not relevant. These are the items noted:

  • "In the early weeks of the NBA’s new season, which is being played in empty or mostly empty home arenas, home teams are trending toward their worst win percentage ever—just a shade over 50 percent."
  • "In the English Premier League, there was no bubble. Home sides, playing in their own stadiums, won 41.6 percent and drew 20.5 percent of matches during the stretch of 2020 when no fans were allowed into stadiums, a drop from winning 44.8 percent and drawing 25 percent with fans in the stands in the prior season."
  • "In the NFL, a league that would never dream of playing in a bubble, home teams (some playing in front of a limited number of fans) went 127–128–1 in the regular season and 6–6 in the playoffs"
  • "In MLB, where the home team gets the benefit of batting last, home-field advantage appeared even stronger than usual, as the Ringer’s Ben Lindbergh outlined. Home teams won 55.7 percent of their games, higher than the historical average of 54 percent and the highest mark in a single season since 2010."
  • "And in equally bubble-averse college football, home teams (some, again, playing in front of smaller-than-usual crowds) went 318–216, a roughly 60 percent win rate that falls roughly in line with the sport’s history."

Most of those numbers the equivalent of a coinflip. The lone exceptions are baseball, which is incredibly random and has a major built-in advantage for home teams, and college football, which still played a bunch of non-conference games designed to be lopsided. In the Big Ten, which did not play nonconference games, home teams went 22-27.

This seems to be a pretty clear conclusion: fan yelling works and is the source of most home-field advantage. This is not the conclusion provided, though:

The pandemic has given strong backing to the idea that there’s something at play in home-field advantage that goes beyond the noise generated by boisterous fans. But as to what that something is, the pandemic has provided data points for and against every explanation.

I don't know how you get there from the data above, which clearly suggests that a lack of fans has severely dented—mostly erased—home field advantage in most sports.

Exit walk-on linebacker. I don't think anyone expected Adam Shibley to play much next year but now your expectations can decline further:

Shibley has some tape to show now and might be able to land at a starting job in the group of 5.

Scared off by Thomas Kithier. Enoch Boakye decommitted from MSU, which is a blow for their 2022 recruiting but one that they've got plenty of time to repair. I'm mostly interested in Boakye delivering what has to be one of the least realistic reasons for departing in the history of decommits:

“Just doing a lot of research with my people and watching a lot of games, it looks like they will have a lot of guys staying,” Boakye said. “I want to go to a place where I have the opportunity to make an impact right away. That’s the No. 1 goal of mine.”

Boakye might be reclassifying, which means that MSU's frontcourt would return intact for what would have been his freshman year. I don't know, if I was a five-star center and someone told me Thomas Kithier, Marcus Bingham, and Julius Marble were all returning my response would be "so?"

Make the nets bigger. Ken Dryden has an article in the Atlantic about the plague of ever-bigger goaltenders in hockey. This is the key problem it creates:

The most basic instruction every coach offers their forwards has always been, “Go to the net”—for rebounds, to deflect shots, to screen the goalie. Now they say the same but slightly differently. “Take away the goalie’s eyes. If he can see it, he’ll stop it.” If a goalie, even in his near-perfect position, can’t see the puck, he can’t move the few necessary inches to fill the unguarded spot, and if the puck happens to be shot exactly there, it will go in. Or, alternatively, if the goalie doesn’t see the puck but it hits him, he won’t have known ahead of time whether or when to shrug his upper body to create the cushion that swallows up any rebound. Instead, the puck will hit him and rebound somewhere in front of him and his instincts, his own worst enemy as it turns out, will take over. He will move toward it, opening himself up just enough. Or if the puck is deflected and goes in a new direction he couldn’t anticipate, the result is the same.

So for shooters and coaches, that is the strategy. Rush the net with multiple offensive players, multiple defensive players will go with them, multiple arms, legs, and bodies will jostle in front of the goalie, and the remaining shooters, distant from the net, will fire away hoping to thread the needle, hoping the goalie doesn’t see the needle being threaded, because if he does, he’ll stop it. The situation for the shooter is much like that of a golfer whose ball has landed deep in the woods. He’s been told many times that a tree is more air than leaves and branches, but with several layers of trees in front of him, somehow his ball will hit a leaf or branch before it gets to the green. Somehow, the shooter’s shot will not make it to the net. So he will try again. Because what else can he do?

The result: This game, one that allows for such speed and grace, one that has so much open ice, is now utterly congested.

You see this in the Big Ten whenever MSU or Notre Dame rolls into town. Tight checking, no lanes to the net, everyone in the slot. Dryden proposes various solutions, and the one that seems to work the best to me is to increase the size of the net. That would make more of the ice useful for shooting from and would punish the everyone-lay-down-in-the-slot approach to play, because those shots that got through would be much more dangerous.

Also:

  • leaving your feet to block a shot should be a penalty
  • offsides shouldn't exist (the two line pass still exists to prevent severe cherry-picking)
  • batting pucks with a high stick should be legal (there is already a penalty for high-sticking and the rule does not dissuade players from trying to deflect pucks above their shoulders, because they do not know if it's above their shoulder and they might as well try)

The 2021 NHL draft takes are getting out of control. Corey Pronman's latest NHL mock draft:

  1. Luke Hughes
  2. Matt Beniers
  3. Owen Power
  4. Dylan Guenther
  5. Kent Johnson

Going to assert that Michigan's 2021-22 team featuring four of the five top picks in the previous draft—knock on wood—would be unprecedented. (Also F Mackie Samoskevich makes Pronman's HMs.)

Meanwhile, SI's Ryan Kennedy still has Owen Power at the top of his list. Hughes is #1, Power #3, Beniers #7, Johnson #8 to FC Hockey.

Etc.: Cameron Krutwig driving that Rambler train again. More on Brown getting that game ball. The scout team, profiled. Todd McShay's latest mock draft has Kwity Paye at 21 and Jalen Mayfield at 28. There's going to be an NIT. Why? I don't know.

Comments

madtadder

February 16th, 2021 at 3:40 PM ^

In the book Scorecasting (which I highly highly recommend for anyone that likes both sports and math), they posit that home field advantage is caused by fans, but not in the way that you would think:

What sports fan doesn’t harbor a belief that the officials are making bad calls against his or her team? It’s a home crowd that voices this displeasure the loudest. The criticism ranges from passably clever (“Ref, if you had one more eye, you’d be a Cyclops!”) to the crass (“Ref, you might as well get on your knees because you’re blowing this game!”) to the troglodytic (“You suck!”). Dissatisfaction is voiced individually and also collectively, often in a stereo chant of “Bullshit! Bullshit!” In Europe—quaint, civilized Europe—there are even various soccer websites that enable fans to download antireferee chants as ringtones.

What we’ve found is that officials are biased, confirming years of fans’ conspiracy theories. But they’re biased not against the louts screaming unprintable epithets at them. They’re biased for them, and the bigger the crowd, the worse the bias. In fact, “officials’ bias” is the most significant contributor to home field advantage. “Home cooking,” as it’s called, is very much on the menu at sporting events.

They were able to show this effect by looking at soccer matches, and the amount of injury time that was added by the referees in games where the home team was either ahead or behind:

If the home team was ahead by a goal at the end of regulation, the average injury time given was barely two minutes, but if the home team was behind by a goal, the average injury time awarded was four minutes—twice as much time. Sure enough, when the score was tied and it wasn’t clear whether to increase or decrease the time for the home team, the average injury time was right around three minutes.

Batters also strike out less and walk more when they are the home team.

ex dx dy

February 16th, 2021 at 4:21 PM ^

I wrote an article for Tech Hockey Guide a couple of years ago on home ice advantage in college hockey. I came to the conclusion that the total number of fans doesn't matter so much as the percentage of the arena filled, but I didn't go into enough depth to identify the mechanism by which fans affected the game. Interesting that it comes down the officials.

bronxblue

February 16th, 2021 at 4:36 PM ^

Yeah, I remember reading this book and finding that conclusion interesting as well.  

It's pretty given that home field advantage exists because human beings react to other human beings yelling at them, and that article (which I saw a week ago and thought came to some weird conclusions) seemingly dismisses that reality for reasons I can't quite follow.

Blue Vet

February 16th, 2021 at 4:42 PM ^

I think you / the book are exactly right about officials' bias as source of home field/court/rink advantage.

That advantage though isn't because of some nefariously conscious decision but because officials are human. However much we all want to see ourselves as fully independent and in control of our thoughts, human beings are regularly swayed in all sorts of ways.

Also, I've never understood why soccer lets the obvious bias of "injury" time end their matches.

A State Fan

February 16th, 2021 at 3:42 PM ^

RE: MSU centers.

I think Boakye probably didn't think "I have to beat out Kithier?" He probably thought "holy shit I'm going to be way better than Kithier and still only play 8 minutes a game to his 15." Which is 100% correct.

Michigan4Life

February 16th, 2021 at 4:45 PM ^

I think there's a good chance of Henry declaring for the draft. He's a junior and has already put his name through evaluation process for the draft. If his stock won't change between now and next season, I can see him leave.

Then there might be transfer in Rocket Watts. Strong rumor that he'll transfer after this season.

Even then, Izzo will have 6 bigs if he brings in Enoch into the fold which is bad roster management.

WindyCityBlue

February 16th, 2021 at 3:43 PM ^

I watched the entire Luka Garza video and he's still an enigma to me.  He's not particularly athletic, not super tall for a center, and sucks at defense.  But he has great footwork and just knows how to score.  I try to understand why someone like Austin Davis can't be like Garza.  They have basically the same physical capabilities, and I would go so far as to say that Davis has just as good footwork as Garza and that Davis is better at defense.  But what is are the intangible assets that separate Garza from Davis?

It's fascinating that Garza is likely going to POTY.  I'm almost obsessed and losing sleep over this.

 

Watching From Afar

February 16th, 2021 at 3:59 PM ^

Garza can shoot to a degree (43% from 3 this year at 3/game and is a career 70% FT shooter - Davis is a career 60% shooter and doesn't shoot 3s). Davis is a back to the basket, jump-hook and reverse guy that is impressively nimble (only around the basket). I don't think I've seen him take a jump shot ever and he is pretty clunky outside of the lane. Inside 5 feet? Really good. Outside of 5 feet? Nothin.

Also, Davis plays less than 20% of Michigan's minutes while Garza plays 75% of Iowa's. His conditioning is much better.

IAMNOTMAIZEN

February 16th, 2021 at 5:11 PM ^

There is nothing ‘intangible’ about Garza’s ability. It’s pure skill. He contorts his body in every which way to get baskets, his coordination is insane. Why isn’t Davis as good as Garza despite potentially being his physical equal? It’s the same reason Usain Bolt is a shitty soccer player, it’s thousands and thousands of hours of practice and skill work with the ball. 

 

Richard75

February 16th, 2021 at 5:36 PM ^

Good question. Sometimes we get too wrapped up in athleticism and lose sight of skill/knowing how to play. I mean, Juwan Howard wasn’t particularly athletic for an elite player. Sometimes you wondered whether he could dunk, since he did it so infrequently.

Davis is outstanding at scoring from inside of 5 feet, but Garza has so many more tools. And even on that particular point—what they do when they get the ball in great position—they’re different. Garza has always drawn a ton of fouls—he attempted half as many FTs as FGs even as a freshman. Davis has never gotten to the line at nearly that rate. Even leaving aside the obvious differences in role and shooting range, Garza’s game is just way more aggressive.

lhglrkwg

February 16th, 2021 at 3:47 PM ^

I mean, there's no way any team has ever had anything close to this much success in one draft, right? I feel like it's significant for a team to have 2 or even 3 first rounders in one draft, much less potentially 4 guys affiliated in the top 10

Watching From Afar

February 16th, 2021 at 3:50 PM ^

Outside of fans screaming and holding up signs, I'd assume there is some home court advantage in basketball that has a lot to do with sight lines and being comfortable with shooting against varying backdrops. Not knowing how often teams are practicing in their auxiliary gyms versus their actual home courts, I would think Michigan would be more comfortable shooting in Crisler than at The Barn because they do it every day or close to it. We see what happens when teams play in NFL stadiums during the tournament and have to deal with a different backdrop behind the hoop, and while that is an extreme example, going into different arenas may contribute to the usual dip some teams experience. Places like Crisler and the Breslin aren't that dissimilar in their layout (Crisler is darker) but there are some weird ones out there that are old fieldhouses or have steeper seats behind the backboard.

Baseball it's getting used to the centerfield set up and shadows to pick up the ball as it leaves the pitcher's hand.

Football could be a bit of a sightline thing for WRs trying to track passes. That and stadium lights.

Hockey... I always think of The Joe and the boards giving funny bounces that Lidstrom and others knew how to play.

MadMatt

February 16th, 2021 at 5:55 PM ^

And, let's not forget how Yastrzemski and other long time Red Sox LF's would play the green monster like a fiddle, turning long shots that would be doubles or HRs in other parks into loud singles.  Or, the Philadelphia Flyers adopting the "Broad Street Bullies" style of play because their smaller rink meant more skilled players had less room to get away from their goons.

We had an unusual home pool advantage when I swam in college.  Our pool was 25 meters long instead of the usual 25 yards (ours was 10% longer).  That turned into a substantial disadvantage in everyone else's pool, I could never get my turns timed up correctly in 25 yards after practicing in meters all season long (and of course 400 and 800 meter events instead of 500 and 1000 yards).  Also, no one would agree to have Conference Championship meets in our pool.  But hey, we were on the cutting edge of the U.S. going metri...oh never mind.

1VaBlue1

February 17th, 2021 at 8:59 AM ^

You talk about home pool advantage, but I can one-up that!  My high school had a carpeted basketball court.  Yes - carpet.  It played pretty well, but when dribbling the ball would bounce straight up, so you had to push it a little further out as you ran down the court.  The first quarter of games was a pretty clear advantage, but visiting players would get used to it more as the game went on.  You could always spot the advantage when some instinctive move, or fast break, was interrupted by an unforced error as the ball bounced ever so slightly differently.

Michigan4Life

February 16th, 2021 at 9:52 PM ^

The grip and feel of the balls are all different.

There's an article about the balls used in college level and how there's no uniformity between schools with regards to how they use the ball: https://www.businessinsider.com/lonzo-ball-shot-basketball-brand-theory-2017-3

Ball may look the same but each brand are different. I know this because I prefer Wilson over Spaulding, Baden, Nike, etc. when it comes to pick up basketball games.

njvictor

February 16th, 2021 at 3:53 PM ^

I think Todd is definitely a player that if I was an NBA team I'd take a flyer on in the 2nd round. While lacking consistency right now, his size, athleticism, instincts, and perimeter game is something you take a chance on and stash in the G League for a few years because his upside is vast. It's low risk, high upside move. He's still finding his footing against legit G League competition and I think the expectation of every 5 star to come into the G League and immediately dominate like Kuminga and Green are is a little irrational. Todd did have a nice 3rd game this season where he finished with 14 points on 5-8 shooting, 4-5 from 3, 6 rebounds, a block and steal.

outsidethebox

February 16th, 2021 at 4:45 PM ^

Isaiah made a huge mistake by not coming to play for Juwan and this staff-as, likely did Christopher. Both these young men would be in very different places, as in much better, if they had signed on here. The stamp Juwan is putting on Michigan basketball is that this is not only a good place to develop but it is likely the best place. This Michigan roster is good but it is not nearly as good as Juwan has them playing-relative to the competition. This is how you play the game at a high level...and it brings joy to my heart to see them put forth the effort to play to the level they are being taught.

AC1997

February 16th, 2021 at 5:25 PM ^

The problem with Todd (and to an extent Christopher) is that they saw themselves, fueled in part by the rankings of recruiting sites, as lottery picks.  College was barely a speed bump on their way to the NBA.  I could never figure out why Todd was ranked so high watching his tape.  Yes he is tall and athletic.  No he has no idea how to use that skill on the court effectively yet.  If Todd came to Michigan and was willing to play Johns' role this season and build into what we hope Diabate is next year - great.  He wanted to get paid (fine - go for it kid) and kept being told he was a top-20 guy ready for the NBA.  

More interesting to me is what this does to his future and that of the G-League Ignite option.  If Todd goes undrafted as it looks, then what?  Does he go into the G-League draft?  Is he a free agent?  Does he go overseas?  Could he come back to the Ignite team another year and get money?  

After that....what do other fringe prospects like Todd do the following year?  He'll walk away with some cash and that's worth noting - but has he actually hurt his long term earning power?  

Christopher is a little different because he wanted to be with his brother, he's actually been pretty good (if a shaky shooter), and he wanted to be the man for his team.  It was easy to question whether ASU was a way to "build his brand" but he's still in the lottery projection.

UMQuadz05

February 16th, 2021 at 4:01 PM ^

I love hockey but it has a huge, huge problem.  Too many of the goals scored are essentially random and aren't related to the actual quality and skill of the shot.  

yossarians tree

February 16th, 2021 at 4:31 PM ^

Came on to support this. The NHL is played so tight these days that it's almost unwatchable. Compare to the Olympics where there is end to end action and great flow. I believe the international ice surface is larger, which helps. Making the goal bigger would also help the goalies--meaning, the good goalies, the athletic guys who make incredible saves like Hasek or Grant Fuhr. Most of these guys now are just monoliths, the last obstacle in at the end of a web of arms and legs. They have to do something.

outsidethebox

February 16th, 2021 at 4:31 PM ^

This has been my contention for a very long time. Hockey is exhibit A of the saying "Perfection is the enemy of good". The goal is so small that it rewards luck as much as it does skill-and makes scoring a random event. The goal needs to be a foot wider...and let the truly skilled players shine-both offensively and defensively.  

rob f

February 16th, 2021 at 8:00 PM ^

Not only a foot wider but also several inches higher. And DO NOT allow goalie pads to be any bigger than they currently are.

I think it's something that would have to be phased-in over a few years, though: start by enlarging the goal at the college and junior levels next season, International competition the following year, and in the NHL in year three.

Why?

I don't think NHL front offices will go along with it until they have the opportunity to thoroughly scout, draft, and train goalies in various stages of the NHL pipelines.

All other levels of hockey (such as high schools) can figure out when and if they wish to adapt to the change in goal size. 

outsidethebox

February 17th, 2021 at 8:25 AM ^

I would engage in further discussion of this point-with the intent of perfectly defining the meaning and understanding of this saying but...ha!

I'm not a "just have fun" organized sports person. I love skill, effort and accomplishment. But here, the goal is too small. Increase the goal size-and the crease size while you're at it.

ShadowStorm33

February 16th, 2021 at 4:32 PM ^

Re hockey goalies, how much of "goalies are getting bigger" is that the players are getting bigger, and how much is that the pads are getting bigger? Maybe another option would be to reduce the size of the pads?

stephenrjking

February 16th, 2021 at 5:21 PM ^

I read the Dryden article and I find it persuasive. I'm already inclined to think that something needs to be done about the dominance of goaltending, and I've been sympathetic to the enlarge-the-goal argument before (Dryden is not the only goalie I've heard who has thrown their hands up and admitted that shrinking equipment isn't going to fix stuff), but he certainly lays things out well. A large goal is going to allow more shots to score, period.

Hockey has changed quite a bit from the high-scoring 80s, and when I was younger I used to idealize the 80s as a time of free-flowing, up-and-down offense. And it was, sort of, but a lot of the goals scored weren't especially fancy. They were the products of shots taken that beat the goalie, sure... but it was stuff like Jari Kurri shooting a random slapshot from outside the circle, near the boards, and beating a standing goalie stick-side. These goals are never easy to come by today. 

Reward guys for getting shots on net by giving more of them a chance to go in. That's the answer.

It really does show just what a revolution happened in the late 80s and early 90s, and a significant part of that revolution was spelled R-O-Y.*

I haven't seen any talk about this, but there's no way that Luke Hughes goes to college next year if he's drafted that high, is there?

*For you newbies, that name is not pronounced how it is spelled. You have to pronounce it WAAAAAAAAHHHHH," because Patrick Roy is, in addition to a brilliant goalie, a whining drama generator who refused to step on blue lines, liked imitating the statue of liberty, and gave up 6 goals on the trot to the Red Wings in game 7 in 2002.

JeepinBen

February 17th, 2021 at 12:18 PM ^

The revolution started much before Roy, even if it wasn't televised (thanks old man Wirtz!) when Glenn Hall pioneered the butterfly style.

It was a good article by Dryden, hard to think of another goalie who writes so well considering we've all got at least one screw loose. "The Game" is outstanding for folks who haven't read it.

matty blue

February 16th, 2021 at 5:35 PM ^

If you're looking at one-and-done types the portal is likely to cough up just as many quality options as high school recruiting.

i'm sure i'm just dense, but i don't think i've ever heard this before...truer words were never spoken.  if you give me the choice between chaundee brown - a "finished' product - or a possibly-disinterested, raw player like isaiah todd?  i mean, it's obvious, isn't it?

jdib

February 17th, 2021 at 1:36 AM ^

It sounds to me like Todd still has the potential there but it would have been nice to see what he could do under the tutelage of coach Howard.  Seems like it would have been a boon to both our program and his maturation process.  Genuinely hope he figures it out!

1VaBlue1

February 17th, 2021 at 9:09 AM ^

Not one comment about the linked Brown article?  Yeah, it's Mlive, but still sad...

Despite that Brown comes off the bench, he was treated like a star by Juwan in the locker room after the UW game because of what he's done at both Wake Forest and Michigan.  That's the kind of commitment to his players that will make them continue to follow his lead, and that will keep bringing in other top talent through the years.  That Isiah Todd couldn't see that is his loss.  The more I see and hear about Juwan, and how his team plays, the more I like...