Mailbag: Late Game Threes, Basketball And Football Recruiting Reassurances, The Poisoned Chalice Of Access

Go for three against MSU?

Brian,

Frustrated after the end of the MSU basketball game.  Simple question...if you have the ball down 2 points, with the chance to take the last shot, wouldn't you give yourself a better chance to win the game by running the clock down and taking the best three point shot you can get within the last five seconds?

Simplistically, Let's say it has a 35% chance to go in, and that your win % if it goes in is 100%.  The other option is go to go for a two point shot with time left on the clock.  What are your odds of winning with that strategy?  Much worse, right?  I'm no math major, but to me the odds go like this:

- generously, a 50% chance of making the shot, which then...
- gives your opponent a possession to win.  Call it 50/50 that they take advantage.
- even if they don't, all you get is overtime, which lets call another 50/50 shot.

Maybe you can run the numbers, but it seems like your win % is something like 12.5%.  You need three toss ups to go your way.

I'll hang up and listen...

Regards,
Philip Maguran

It's a bit more complicated than that.

1. Michigan isn't just worried about what will happen if they score. They're also worried about what will happen if they don't. Michigan had 20 seconds left when Bielfeldt tipped the ball in. If that had gone the the other way they had an opportunity to force a turnover or get another bite at the apple in the event MSU did not knock down both free throws. Even an 80% shooter like Denzel Valentine gives you a shot at the game about a third of the time.
2. Michigan's tying basket was a off an offensive rebound. Off a two, yes, but even if it was a three the ensuing putback is still worth two.
3. Your chance at a putback is greater if you aren't shooting a jumper. In the NBA, shots within 6 feet get rebounded at a 37% rate; threes at just a 26% rate. (Threes are still better than long twos at 21%.) Albrecht's shot was a weird floater, one that saw Branden Dawson checking Bielfeldt at the FT line in an attempt to prevent a three—the nature of that shot greatly aided the subsequent putback.
4. Your chances of an OREB are zero if you wait for a three at the buzzer.
5. Last second threes are generally bad shots because the opponent is maniacally focused on the three-point line. Albrecht's three to bring Michigan within striking distance was a good example of the phenomenon. To get any sort of look he had to take the shot a few feet behind the arc. See also:

you're welcome

Given all that the decision is far less clear. I'd be totally on-board with an open look that came out of the context of the offense. I would prefer it to any non-gimme two. But waiting for a do-or-die three is not good eats.

I don't have a problem with the way regulation ended. In that situation the imperative is to have a good offensive possession, hopefully quickly, and Albrecht's quick take got a decent shot that put Michigan in position for an OREB without bleeding much time.

[After the JUMP: talking people off various recruiting related ledges]

Basketball recruiting disappointment? 

I was hoping to maybe get some insight on what our expectations for basketball recruiting should be. There's been a lot of hand-wringing on the board recently about our small '15 class and diminishing returns on a '16 class. More importantly, I've been rather anxious since our recent tournament runs haven't seemed to produce noticeable dividends.

What's going on? Should we be frustrated that we're still pulling in multiple 2 and 3 star recruits every class, while OSU packs 4 star players? Is our staff underperforming? Are they performing admirably? For that matter what is underperforming?

I just don't know where to put the bar.

Burke, Levert, GRob, JMo were all 3 stars when they committed, of course. Stauskas and Morris were unheralded 4 stars, if I remember correctly. We developed the hell out of those guys, finding not a few diamonds in the rough, but should we still be recruiting at that level? Shouldn't we be landing surer bets at this point? If we have to keep relying on diamonds in the rough, we're going to find ourselves with nothing but coal on occasion, right?

I admit that I'm a bit disappointed that Michigan's back-to-back deep tournament runs aren't paying off bigger. It's frustrating to watch James Blackmon and Devin Booker light it up from three in a year when Michigan is struggling to find good shots.

But the profile of the team has changed. Walton, Irvin, and Chatman are all touted recruits, and Michigan did reel in Stauskas (who was more touted than people remember) and Mitch McGary. GRIII committed to Michigan so early that his rise to big recruit was all post-commit. Year in, year out Michigan has three or four guys who are guru-approved.

Where they've struggled is in making the transition up the ladder. Michigan was caught in a bit of a bind last year when Duke and Kentucky started heavily pursuing Luke Kennard, Booker, and Blackmon. When that happens your recent success isn't as much of a pull because the other school can match and exceed it. They're bringing in Jaylen Brown for a visit soon, but no one expects that to go anywhere.

The reality of the situation is that a ton of basketball players are getting paid under the table. For better or worse Michigan isn't going to play that game—or if they do, not to the extent that other schools will. Adidas might be another issue there. Rick Pitino thinks it is, and if a guy like him is willing to say it publicly I believe it.

That means Michigan has a limited pool of guys to go after and is starting a lot of recruitments trying to overcome a four-digit handicap. They've had success doing so with underrated guys and loveable weirdos, and that looks like it'll continue. They will get guys ranked around 75th consistently, with occasional forays into five-star types, and they'll try to build winners from those parts.

After the decade of basketball pre-Beilein that's terrific, but Michigan just does not have the ceiling of other programs willing to break the rules.

Look down the road to East Lansing if you need more evidence of that: the last two MSU recruiting classes have one four-star in them (and that's a dubious one—tiny no-shoot PG Tum Tum Nairn) as Izzo swung and missed on a bunch of guys who ended up with Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, etc. Their upcoming class has an in-state guy and a couple of shooting guards Michigan was keeping on the back burner. Izzo's annoying  but he's clean, and even a program that's been up as long as Michigan State is getting pummeled in recruiting.

This, incidentally, is the selfish reason you should be in favor of any and all liberalizations of NCAA rules. Michigan and its fanbase have money, but currently will not spend it like other programs will.

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

In Michigan's specific case, I think they were caught off guard by the need to add guys in 2015. They were not expecting LeVert to be an early entry candidate, I'm guessing, and by the time that became likely they had fallen behind with various players. They also chose to focus on the 2016 class, which was the first one where they could really get in on the ground level with kids who had seen Michigan in the national championship game.

That still has a significant chance to work out. AL SF Josh Langford continues to say the right things; Jerry Meyer and a guy from Zags Blog both have Michigan predictions in from January. Tyus Battle is seemingly interested—he has been shooting down those Thornton-Battle package deal rumors at every opportunity—and Michigan is coming on strong for Cassius Winston now that Thornton is fading as an option. They have one of those 75th-ish players committed in C Jon Teske.

All they really need is one or two guys and Beilein can fill in the rest with diamonds in the rough; even if they have to look at some plan B types those have turned up a shocking number of draft picks under Beilein.

Remain calm

Hi Brian and Ace,

So lately we seem to have been receiving a series of "no's" and "thanks but no thanks" and "Michigan made it hard, but I chose _____________." I have to say, I thought Harbaugh would come in and clean house, getting damn near anyone he wanted from anyone but the Alabamas and (ugh) Ohio States. Especially considering his high powered staff. My question is: Are you concerned at all about this? What do you think the problem might be? In your estimation, will this problem be alleviated in future classes?

Thanks,
Anthony

Recruiting's been tougher than expected under Harbaugh. It is not likely to be a long-term issue, though. Harbaugh and much of the staff came directly from the NFL and had to start from square one in recruiting; only Durkin, Drevno and Mattison were in any position to call players who they had an existing relationship with. The former two were mostly calling guys a long way away who had not even considered Michigan.

Various short-term fixes are going to have to do, and the 2016 class might start a little slow since Michigan hasn't been able to focus much on juniors since they're still trying to assemble a reasonable 2015 class. After that, though, Michigan should take off.

Does Harbaugh think nothing of tradition?

Are you a little disappointed that it doesn't look like Jim Harbaugh will be continuing the tradition of poaching a Purdue recruit when there's a coaching change? Toying with Nebraska is fun and all, but the Purdue pilfering after Joe Tiller's ridiculousness was a nice little tradition.

Michael

Yes. I'm especially disappointed because Purdue has a FB commit named Richard Worship III.

On second thought, there doesn't appear to be a Roundtree out there. Purdue's highest rated recruit* is an OL from Indianapolis who's 738rd in the 247 composite. Roundtree was a guy on the 3/4 star borderline. Grabbing a current Boiler recruit would be closer to grabbing Russell Bellomy than 'Tree.

*[who isn't already enrolled]

Meta stuff

Hey Brian/mgoblog people,

I came across this article by a popular youtuber that hits on some points that you guys touch on with regards to the sportsmedia, only in the context of the media as a whole.  I'm passing it along to you because not only do I think it is an interesting and well thought out piece, but also because of a couple lines in the text where Hank talks about access. Specifically, how cable news channels are surviving because they get access to things like the President, due to "some long-ago established procedures that assumed they would use that power in the public interest". 

This struck me a bit because whenever it was that you guys started getting access to the press areas around Michigan sports, my mind was blown.  It seemed to me at the time that in order to get that kind of access, you needed to have been reporting on Michigan since the turn of the (previous) century or something.  To me, at least, it seemed like you guys were able to knock down some sort of barrier that probably shouldn't have existed in the first place.  And now, you guys use it do to actual, you know, reporting.

Dave

Credit for MGoBlog's press pass goes to two people: SI's Richard Deitsch and former SID Bruce Madej. Deitsch was in town for a year on a Knight-Ridder fellowship that coincided with the demise of the Ann Arbor News. It was the summer and WTKA still had an afternoon show so John Bacon decided to do a show on the direction of media; they invited me on for a couple segments. Some wires got crossed with Madej's planned segment so he was scheduled to call in between my two segments.

So I'm sitting there, listening to Bacon and Deitsch interview Madej when Deitsch grows little devil horns and asks Madej flat-out whether he'd give MGoBlog a press pass. He said yes, I approached Tim Sullivan (now at Rivals) about being the beat guy, and Madej has been silently cursed by every subsequent SID since.

But the interesting thing about our access is how little we do with it. Heiko went after his interviewwith Al Borges on his own initiative and got it mostly because Borges wanted to do it. Other than that, we show at the pressers and occasionally lob an oddly specific question about why play X went wrong that Mattison answers with aplomb. Ace writes his game recaps from various press areas. In combination with the Ann Arbor Observer, we have a nice photopool that is Creative Commons licensed.

Other than that, we don't use or try to use our access for anything. We aren't profile writers, we aren't that interested in one-on-one interviews, we don't like the idea of being dependent on someone else giving us something to continue being effective. If Michigan were to yank our press pass (something that didn't seem far-fetched after Bacon was sent to Bolivia), very little about the site would change.

All this is to say that I think depending on access is a rube's game in an environment where mostly everyone gets the same thing and programs are increasingly trying to control the message by having their own reporters. The dead end that is access-dependence was never more clear when Michigan had their own reporter sit down with Hoke during the season and there was still little other than the usual clichés on offer.

So… I don't know, man. Coaches and players mostly don't want to talk to you. So I'm going to take that hint.