Saturday, March 28, 2009 - Drew Montag

Nothing But ‘Net – Week #22 (03/30/2009) – Season Wrap-up, Final Grades, And A Look Ahead

Season Wrap-up

The 2008-2009 season is over for the University of Michigan men’s basketball team, and it was very encouraging.  In general, the Wolverines exceeded the expectations of most fans, including me.  Based on last season’s dismal 10-22 record, I was hoping for enough improvement for Michigan to have a winning record, and make it to the National Invitational Tournament (NIT)this season, then the NCAA Tournamentnext season, and actually win a game in the NCAA Tournament the season after that.  Instead, Michigan moved things up a couple of seasons, and made it to The Big Dance this season, and won one game.

When I look at a season, I like to divide the games into 3 categories: games Michigan should win, games Michigan probably don’t stand much chance of winning, and “toss up” games.  In a successful season, Michigan would win all the “should win” games, some of the “toss up” games, and maybe one or two of the “should lose” games.  Here’s how this season’s games were divided up in my mind:

“Should win” games (12): Michigan Tech, 2^nd round 2K Classic opponent (Northeastern or IUPUI), Norfolk State, Savannah State, Eastern Michigan, Oakland, Florida Gulf Coast, North Carolina Central, Northwestern (home and away), Penn State (home), and Minnesota (home).

“Should lose” games (10): One of the 2K Classic games at MSG, Maryland, Duke, Illinois (away), Ohio State (away), Purdue (home and away), Connecticut, Michigan State, and Wisconsin (away).

“Toss up” games (9): One of the 2K Classic games at MSG, Wisconsin (home), Illinois (home), Indiana (away), Iowa (home and away), Ohio State (home), Penn State (away), and Minnesota (away).

So, if Michigan had won all 12 of their “should win” games, and more than half (5 out of 9) of their “toss up” games, that would have worked out to a record of 17-14.  However, Michigan did better than that: 19-12.  Here’s how they did it:

• “Should Win” games (12-0).  They won all the games that they should have.
• “Should Lose” games (2-8).  They actually won two games that they were expected to lose: Duke (home) and Purdue (home).  They also hung in there in three of the “should lose” games that they did end up losing: Maryland, Connecticut, and Wisconsin (away).
• “Toss Up” games (5-4).  They beat UCLA (MSG), Illinois (home), Indiana (away), Iowa (home), and Minnesota (away), and lost the other four games.

When you look at it this way, you can see that the key to their success this season was winning those two “should lose” games.  That was the difference between finishing 17-14 (NIT) and 19-12 (NCAA).

Here are the final 2008-2009 results:

As you can see, Michigan started the season strong (13-3), then they had a rough patch in the 9 games starting with the away game vs. Illinois, when they went 2-7.  They recovered nicely and came on strong down the stretch, going 4-2 to finish the regular season, and 1-1 in the Big Ten Tournament and the NCAA Tournament.

Good/Bad Wins/Losses

Not all wins are good wins, and not all losses are bad losses.  Sure, a win is a win, and a loss is a loss, but some wins can be discouraging, and some losses can be encouraging.  I know, Michigan doesn’t believe in “moral victories” in any of their sports, but I do.  Therefore, I’ve gone back over the season, and found the good and bad wins, and the good and bad losses:

Good wins

Date

Opponent

Location

Score

Comments

Good losses

Date

Opponent

Location

Score

Comments

Bad wins

Date

Opponent

Location

Score

Comments

Bad losses

Date

Opponent

Location

Score

Comments

Not bad: 7 “good wins” and 3 “good losses” vs. only 2 “bad wins” and 3 “bad losses”.

Season Statistics

The Athletic Department publishes complete statistics after every game, and they’re very thorough and complete.  They’re also a bit much to digest.  Here are the “stats lite” for this season.

First, let's look at the team shooting statistics for the season:

These stats show why Michigan had such a successful season: they shot better than their opponents.  They had a decided edge in 3-point shooting and free throws, and were really close in overall field goal shooting.

Next, let’s check out the team non-shooting statistics for the season:

Somehow, Michigan managed to win two thirds of their games this season despite being out-rebounded most of the time.  It’s amazing.

Also, notice that Michigan had 542 assists on 812 baskets.  That’s 66.7%, which is very good.

Now, let’s look at the individual shooting stats for the season:

Most seasons, I say to “forget about the subs and scrubs”, but this season almost everyone on the team averaged at least 10 minutes per game.  The only two exceptions were Cronin, who got redshirted for medical reasons after only playing in 2 games, and Puls, who only played in “mop up” situations.  The rest of the players all played pretty regularly, and they all started at least 5 games over the course of the season.

Looking at the regulars, many of them shot at or above 40%, which is pretty good.  Look at Sims’ overall shooting percentage: over 50%.  That’s awesome.  The biggest problem here is that Michigan really only had two reliable scorers (Harris and Sims).  They need to develop one or two more credible scoring threats to keep opponents from concentrating on Harris and Sims.  At times, Douglass, Grady, Lucas-Perry, and Novak all appeared to be potential candidates to become the elusive 3^rd scoring threat, but they weren’t consistent enough.  Still, they had good seasons, especially considering that they’re all freshmen except for Grady, who is a sophomore.

In the Beilein system, everyone needs to be able to shoot 3-pointers, and most of the players on this season’s team did pretty well, with the exception of Gibson and Shepherd.  Shepherd is a graduating senior, so we don’t have to worry about him for next season, but Gibson has to work on his 3-point shot over the summer.

Finally, let’s check out the individual non-shooting stats for the season:

There are a few interesting stats here, most of them involving Harris:

·         It’s incredible that Harris was only 1 rebound behind Sims for the season.  That’s a lot of rebounds for a guard.

·         It’s amazing that Harris had 154 assists to go with his 181 made baskets.  That means that he had a hand in scoring 335 of Michigan’s 812 baskets (41%).

·         Harris still has to work on his control.  110 turnovers is still too many.

Team Honors

Regardless of the awards announced at the Basketball Bust, here are my awards for this year’s team:

Most Valuable Player: Manny Harris

Best Defensive Player: C.J. Lee

Most Hustle: Zack Novak

Most Improved: C.J. Lee

Final Grades

It’s time for final grades for the team, and Coach Beilein.  I broke this season up into 3 parts, roughly corresponding to the non-conference schedule and the two halves of the Big Ten schedule.  Here are the grades:

As you can see, the grades were pretty consistent all season long.

Looking Ahead

It’s obvious that “the Beilein system” works; now it’s time to take it to the next level.  The trip to the NCAA Tournament this season was too short; next season we’re hoping for (at least) the Sweet 16.

Michigan is losing some valuable senior leadership (Lee, Merritt, and Shepherd), but a large and talented group of players is returning next season, and a nice freshman class of recruitsis on the way.  Michigan needs some height and bulk up front, and they got it.

Before I go any further, I need to say a few words about recruiting.  While fresh players are the lifeblood of any successful college program, some of the so-called experts place way too much emphasis on getting the greatest number of highly-ranked recruits.  They tend to just look at the (somewhat arbitrary) “star” ranking system, and they issue these proclamations about how this school or that school has the #1 or #2 recruiting class, as if it were some mathematical formula.  If only it were that easy!  There are a lot more factors than the number of recruits and how many “stars” they’ve been assigned.  As we saw this season, team chemistry can help turn a collection of walk-ons and 2- and 3-star recruits into a team that can beat a team packed with 5-star recruits.  In the case of Beilein’s system, he is looking for a certain kind of player, so he might be chasing recruits that only get 2 or 3 stars.  The experts look at all the 5-star recruits going elsewhere and announce that Beilein is getting out-recruited.  Of course, half of those 5-star recruits end up leaving for the NBA after 1 or 2 seasons, but they get a lot of press while they’re in college.  They may not help their programs in the long run, but they’re a wonderful short-term solution.

Coach Beilein is looking for a certain kind of player who will fit in with the rest of team, and stay at Michigan for all 4 years.  He’s looking for players who are quick and versatile, and who can play anywhere on the floor.  Everyone on the floor needs to be able to play point guard.  Everyone needs to be able to run the floor, flat out, for 40 minutes.  Everyone needs to be able to shoot 3-pointers, get rebounds, and play multiple styles of defense.  Those players might not be 5-star recruits, but they’re more valuable to the team than any “one year wonder”.  Beilein knows what kind of players he wants on his team, and he gets them.  Don’t worry about how many stars they get, or who else was chasing them.

Here’s a quick look at the incoming freshman class:

Ben Cronin

7’0”, 235 pounds, C

Syracuse, NY

Cronin was a freshman this season, but he needed hip surgery, so he was granted a medical redshirt year, and he’ll have freshman eligibility next season.  We got to see a little of him in the first few games, before his surgery, and he looked pretty good out there.  He was a little timid, and it was obvious that he didn’t want to “bang” in there, but that could have been due to his injured hip.  We’ll have to wait and see how he does next season, when he’s healthy.

Blake McLimans

6’10”, 210 pounds, Power Forward

Hamburg, NY

Here’s one of those quick, versatile players who can play on the perimeter, and still bang underneath.  McLimans needs to add about 25 pounds of muscle, and I’m sure he will in Michigan’s conditioning program.

Jordan Morgan

6’9”, 240 pounds, Power Forward/Center

Detroit, MI

Morgan brings more height and bulk underneath, but he’s still nimble and versatile.

Darius Morris

6’3”, 175 pounds, Point Guard

Los Angeles, CA

You can never have too many true point guards.  Morris is quick, with good ballhandling skills, and a good outside shot.  He also needs to add a few pounds of muscle, but that shouldn’t be a problem.

Matt Vogrich

6’4”, 185 pounds, Shooting Guard

Lake Forest, IL

You can never have enough pure shooters, especially in Beilein’s 3-point-heavy offense.  Vogrich is also a good defender and rebounder.

As you can see, there is reason to be optimistic.  Be sure to check back in November, when I start writing columns for next season.  Until then…

Go Blue!

Current Comments