MBB: Michigan 81, Duke 73 Post-Game Thread

[Highlander]

Hi gang...been a lurker here for years...but the loss finally forced me to ask this because I have been curious all of these years...always comes to my mind in some loses:

Why does K pull his center out of the paint on D? Especially when you are getting beat on back-doors.

Here's my opinion, so take it for what it's worth...

By not guarding your man outside of 12 feet, you are essentially allowing him to set picks without being able to "hedge" on the other side of the pick and prevent the drive. In addition, you allow him to have an unobstructed view of the court and unchallenged passing lanes. K's system is designed to prevent the entry pass by overplaying the passing lanes. What better way to do that than to put a 7'1" guy in front of the person trying to make the pass, or to hedge against the pick?

A great example of this in action was in 2001 vs. UNC in the final game of the regular season. Duke had no one who could match up with Brendan Haywood down low. Instead, they worked to pressured the guards (Forte and maybe Cota IIRC) and prevent them from getting the ball inside. Duke won easily, and Haywood was in large part neutralized.

I've also seen Duke exactly what you suggest before. Shelden Williams, due to his shot blocking ability, routinely played off his man in the paint as a last line of defense. Zoubeck on the other hand doesn't have that skillset, and typically fouls in one on one situations. I think K probably figures his chances are better if he prevents the ball from ever going into the post in the first place than to wait on it to happen and then hope Zoubeck can stop the driving shot without fouling.

Either way it's a gamble.

[Kedsy]

While we may not be a very good 3 point shooting team, we are a very good midrange shooting team. Kyle, Jon and Gerald shoot the midrange shot very well. Instead of the early 3 pointer I would rather see one to this trio shoot the shorter shot.

Except the 1-3-1 defense is designed specifically to eliminate that mid-range shot. That's why it was invented.

[jv001]

Except the 1-3-1 defense is designed specifically to eliminate that mid-range shot. That's why it was invented.

Yes but the 1-3-1 is susceptible to the baseline shot or pass inside. That falls into the midrange game. Bilas kept commenting on that during the game and I know he has more knowledge about college bb than I do. Way too many 3 pt shots. We have much more talent than Michigan. Go Duke!

[trinity92]

K's system is designed to prevent the entry pass by overplaying the passing lanes. What better way to do that than to put a 7'1" guy in front of the person trying to make the pass, or to hedge against the pick?

A great example of this in action was in 2001 vs. UNC in the final game of the regular season.

I've also seen Duke exactly what you suggest before. Shelden Williams, due to his shot blocking ability, routinely played off his man in the paint as a last line of defense. Zoubeck on the other hand doesn't have that skillset, and typically fouls in one on one situations. I think K probably figures his chances are better if he prevents the ball from ever going into the post in the first place than to wait on it to happen and then hope Zoubeck can stop the driving shot without fouling.

Either way it's a gamble.

In 2001, the inside player who was popping to the perimeter to hedge was Carlos Boozer, who is the smaller, more mobile inside player who is perfectly suited to this tactic. As I suggested in my earlier post, it is fine for LT and even MP to pop out to the perimeter, but much less so for BZ. I'd rather he stay in the paint and let the guy who tries to drive off the pick and roll encounter Brian when he gets near the rim, rather than blow by him and force a smaller player to bail BZ out.

[Jumbo]

In 2001, the inside player who was popping to the perimeter to hedge was Carlos Boozer, who is the smaller, more mobile inside player who is perfectly suited to this tactic. As I suggested in my earlier post, it is fine for LT and even MP to pop out to the perimeter, but much less so for BZ. I'd rather he stay in the paint and let the guy who tries to drive off the pick and roll encounter Brian when he gets near the rim, rather than blow by him and force a smaller player to bail BZ out.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is a tough thing to change when the whole rest of the system is predicated on everyone playing the same way. In other words, allowing Brian to sag more might help him individually, but it could screw up the other four guys and prevent Duke from forcing the kinds of shots (or, hopefully, turnovers) it wants.

[Kedsy]

Yes but the 1-3-1 is susceptible to the baseline shot or pass inside. That falls into the midrange game. Bilas kept commenting on that during the game and I know he has more knowledge about college bb than I do. Way too many 3 pt shots. We have much more talent than Michigan. Go Duke!

Well, that's true, in a way. But as I understand it the baseline "hole" in the 1-3-1 is not generally used to put up a midrange jump shot as much as it is used to get a mismatch with the "chaser" on the baseline, who generally is a smaller player in Michigan's zone, or to get him out of position and pass even further inside, and thus the shot you get is hopefully a layup or close-in shot, rather than a midrange shot.

I'm not saying we couldn't have attempted to exploit that weakness in the zone (my recollection is we went there more often in the first Michigan game); I just don't think of it as falling into the midrange game.

[jv001]

Well, that's true, in a way. But as I understand it the baseline "hole" in the 1-3-1 is not generally used to put up a midrange jump shot as much as it is used to get a mismatch with the "chaser" on the baseline, who generally is a smaller player in Michigan's zone, or to get him out of position and pass even further inside, and thus the shot you get is hopefully a layup or close-in shot, rather than a midrange shot.

I'm not saying we couldn't have attempted to exploit that weakness in the zone (my recollection is we went there more often in the first Michigan game); I just don't think of it as falling into the midrange game.

You are correct in your understanding and correct in that we used this in the first game and it was successful. My main concern was that we were in trouble when we resorted to so many shots coming from 3 point range. When those shots are not falling early players have a tendency to "short arm" the next few shots. And I agree with some other posters when you rely so heavly on those shots you could be in trouble. They produce run outs for the other team and we don't get into our half court man to man defense. Go Duke!

[trinity92]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is a tough thing to change when the whole rest of the system is predicated on everyone playing the same way. In other words, allowing Brian to sag more might help him individually, but it could screw up the other four guys and prevent Duke from forcing the kinds of shots (or, hopefully, turnovers) it wants.

Not an easy thing at all and good point. I think you have to play with who you've got, though, and BZ is uniquely ill-equipped to cover on the perimeter. I think it would help the team to know big Z is waiting in the paint if they get beat off the dribble. Unless the opponent's center is an especially good shooter from 15 feet out, which very few of them are, I'd be glad letting him take that shot uncontested rather than having Z chasing on the perimeter. I suppose we could have a guard picked off at the three point line leaving their guard free to penetrate, but Z would be waiting if he took it to the rim. That would require the rest of our guys to stay at home on their man and very possibly concede a mid range jumper off the dribble. That's not a particularly easy shot for a lot of players these days.

Any thoughts as to specific repercussions of keeping Z in the middle most of the time and whether it's worth the tradeoff?

[Indoor66]

Any thoughts as to specific repercussions of keeping Z in the middle most of the time and whether it's worth the tradeoff?

One thing that occurs to me is that you would then have an easy outlet for any other player with the ball who was being pressured. You take away the effectiveness of the on ball pressure we usually play.

[greybeard]

1. I think Jumbo is spot on about why they don't do things differently for BZ.

2. I think BZ will get much better at his exterior role with experience. Hibbbert did, and so will BZ.

3. I also expect down the road, way down the road, you will see perhaps some interesting resets of the defense out of those high switches by BZ that might make attacking Duke off of a high screen by BZ's man a whole other deal. Might be the kind of thing that people will be unable to deal with. Not a bad idea, if I have to say so myself, which of course I am not shy to do.

4. I do not think that the 1-3-1 that Duke faced against Michigan was (a) a single defense, but rather one with many different presents, many different type flexions, many different types of point of attack, pressure, etc.; and (b) even in its "regular" present, or most frequent mode, it is nothing like anything any of us are familiar with.

Beilein is not rolling with the 1-3-1 we learned in high school, any more than Boeheim presents a routine regular old 2-1-2.

[AZBlueDevil1983]

Does anyone else see the problem with a game plan thats not working and doesn't get changed, which is clearly a coaching issue.

Zoubek was open several times inside and we were effectively ignoring his option and pursuing perimeter shooting during critical points in the second half. This couldn't have happened without coaching staff approval. Sometimes when the shots aren't falling other game plans need to be pursued. You don't stick to a losing plan. Certainly in the weeks between games the Michigan squad didn't improve that much. Assuming the teams were essentailly the same as 2 weeks prior, the loss has to go down to a game plan that didn't work and wasn't adjusted to do so. Coaching loss rather than player loss. Certainly not a Michigan victory.

I thought we look unnervingly like the Suns or USA, not Duke.

[Truth]

Does anyone else see the problem with a game plan thats not working and doesn't get changed, which is clearly a coaching issue.

Zoubek was open several times inside and we were effectively ignoring his option and pursuing perimeter shooting during critical points in the second half. This couldn't have happened without coaching staff approval. Sometimes when the shots aren't falling other game plans need to be pursued. You don't stick to a losing plan. Certainly in the weeks between games the Michigan squad didn't improve that much. Assuming the teams were essentailly the same as 2 weeks prior, the loss has to go down to a game plan that didn't work and wasn't adjusted to do so. Coaching loss rather than player loss. Certainly not a Michigan victory.

I thought we look unnervingly like the Suns or USA, not Duke.

Just to be clear... you are indicating that Duke's play resembling our gold-medal Team USA would be a bad thing??

[Kedsy]

Just to be clear... you are indicating that Duke's play resembling our gold-medal Team USA would be a bad thing??

I actually don't agree that we looked at all like either the D'Antoni Suns or Team USA, nor do I have an opinion about whether we should attempt to look like either of them at this point. But in fairness to the original poster if you tried to emulate Team USA's style of play with a roster that isn't capable of or suited to playing that style then, yes, it could be a bad thing.

[Truth]

I actually don't agree that we looked at all like either the D'Antoni Suns or Team USA, nor do I have an opinion about whether we should attempt to look like either of them at this point. But in fairness to the original poster if you tried to emulate Team USA's style of play with a roster that isn't capable of or suited to playing that style then, yes, it could be a bad thing.

I agree with your post, Kedsy, but you added a caveat (that our current roster isn't capable or suited to playing a similar style of ball as Team USA) that the prior poster may not have intended or at least did not state.

Without getting into whether or not our team actually would be capable of playing a style of basketball resembling Team USA, the point that I was making is a superficial comparison to a gold-medal squad should not be viewed as a bad thing, at least not without qualifying caveats such as the one you mentioned.

[Kedsy]

I agree with your post, Kedsy, but you added a caveat (that our current roster isn't capable or suited to playing a similar style of ball as Team USA) that the prior poster may not have intended or at least did not state.

Without getting into whether or not our team actually would be capable of playing a style of basketball resembling Team USA, the point that I was making is a superficial comparison to a gold-medal squad should not be viewed as a bad thing, at least not without qualifying caveats such as the one you mentioned.

Fair enough.