Jan18
THE REVIEW: MSU vs MICHIGAN
U-M OVER STATE
.
REVIEWING THE 5 KEYS:
1. Straight Up – I don't know that this is how MSU will defend Burke but I'd really like to see it happen. Northwestern had a lot of success with good, strong hedges off the pick and roll game and I suspect MSU will be able to do similar things as that's standard issue stuff for the Spartans. That's a good start. Then you figure that Keith Appling should be able to do about as good a job in containing dribble penetration as one will see against Burke, so that also helps. However, when Burke does get into the lane, I think it would be a better move for MSU to force him to score without bringing big man help. When I've seen Burke be most effective in creating for others (particularly Morgan) it hasn't been off the pick and roll out high as much as it's been off dribble penetration. When opponents have forced him to convert those chances himself, I think results have been better. Yeah, he'll likely finish some, but I think that's the lesser of two evils.
REVIEW – MSU didn't give up much on the pick and roll per se, but they really didn't defend the drive well at all. When Matt Vogrich is taking you off the dribble, you have a problem. MSU has been successful playing a tighter, higher line on the perimeter this season than they have in the past, but they've paid for it the last two games. Not sure there's much that can or will be done about it now, but they need to figure out a counter, because guys who shouldn't be successful in getting to the rim against MSU are doing just that.
2. Offensive Rebounding – Regardless of whether M sticks with their man approach or if they use a lot of zone, MSU has to do a better job than they did on Saturday in terms of cashing in on second chance opportunities. M is a small team and though they've been better on the defensive glass than they used to be, this is still an area where MSU should have a distinct advantage and they must exploit it.
RESULT – MSU scored 13 second chance points off 9 offensive rebounds. The Spartans did dominate the glass in the final tally, but they didn't punish Michigan the way you'd hope to see. Give M some credit for that, though...they were aggressive and strong going to the defensive glass and didn't let MSU get all over them save for a sequence in the very early stages of the game.
3. Poise – Michigan doesn't play exactly the way Wisconsin or Northwestern do, but one thing all three of those programs share in common is that they value the ball, don't commit a lot of turnovers, and tend to play the game at a slower pace than does Michigan State. That means on the offensive end, MSU needs to value the ball better than they did in Evanston in order to maximize scoring opportunities, and on the defensive side the Spartans have to stay solid for a full 35 seconds when required. We'll see how much the younger Spartan players learned from this past weekend.
RESULT – Not good enough. MSU committed 14 turnovers and 9 of them came from their two primary playmakers, Appling and Green. Defensively, I thought MSU broke down late in the shotclock too often to feel great about.
4. Pound Green Pound – Michigan is small (even smaller without Horford to turn to) and vulnerable to strong interior scorers. MSU has the sort of lineup to do major damage in the paint if they're patient enough to work the ball inside.
RESULT – MSU got a great post game out of Derrick Nix and a couple of nice post hoops out of Payne as well. The fact is that MSU settled for jumpers a bit too often. They were highly effective whenever they went down low against the Wolverines, as expected.
5. Do They “Get It?” - The reality is that for almost all of the Izzo era, this has been a rivalry solely due to tradition. The Spartans have dominated the series during the last 15 years...but last year's sweep by the Wolverines should have any Spartan's attention and focus on making sure that it is truly the one year aberration most MSU folks believe it to be. Thing is, MSU is rolling into Crisler with a lot of new players, and few of those guys (really, only Alex Gauna and Brandan Kearney) are from the state, so you wonder if they understand all the implications of this game. If they don't now, they will by 9 PM on Tuesday night.
RESULT – I thought MSU played hard and showed some real physical and mental toughness at times, but Izzo said in the post-game he felt it was lacking a bit. I don't know...I thought that they played the way I want an MSU team to play against Michigan in terms of effort and heart. They just didn't execute well enough at either end.
SPECIAL “SIXTH KEY” - How will the game be officiated? This is an annual question in this matchup and the short version is that if the game is called tightly, that's an advantage for Michigan, which doesn't want to deal with MSU's physicality. If it's a bit looser, edge for MSU as they'll be able to impose their will on the smaller, more finesse oriented Michigan team.
RESULT – Hats off to the officials. Yeah, they missed several fouls, both ways, but the fact is that it played to MSU's advantage to not see a game where a parade to the free throw line occurred. The game was decided on the court by the players, and that's something one should always be happy to say, even if you think they missed some along the way.
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY:
THE GOOD:
1. Two headed centers – Nix and Payne won their matchup pretty handily. Combined, they scored 17 points and grabbed 4 boards to 4 points and 2 boards from Michigan's centers (Morgan and McLimans). Nix in particular was great in this one. He was active, focused and strong in the paint when MSU needed him to be that.
2. Backup wings – MSU didn't get great games from their starters, but Brandan Kearney and Austin Thornton made up the difference. Both guys delivered big shots from deep when they were needed and played steadier defense than Dawson and Wood. Kearney in particular has been a revelation in Big Ten play. He's getting it done at both ends (even with his unfortunate foul of Stu Douglass on a three in the first half) and if he continues like this, he and Thornton give Izzo a deeper rotation and some real insurance on the perimeter.
3. Shooting – Whatever MSU's issues were in this game, shooting wasn't one of them. The Spartans were 48% overall from the floor, 47% from deep and 80% in very limited attempts at the line. You can't always count on that in a road environment.
THE BAD AND THE UGLY
1. Playmakers – Neither Appling nor Green had strong games in this one. The two struggled with turnovers (5 for Green, 4 for Keith) and were only 8-20 from the floor and 1-4 from the line. The bottom line is that in order to win on the road, you generally need your best players to be your best in a given game, and that wasn't the case in this one for the Spartans.
2. Defense – Specifically the difficulty MSU had in dealing with dribble penetration. MSU actually did a pretty good job defending the three but they just couldn't contain the Wolverines in terms of to-the-basket stuff and that was very surprising to see. Even guys who aren't known for that element in their game were able to get to the hoop against the Spartans.
OVERALL – MSU now sits at 4-2 in the league. This isn't a devastating loss in and of itself but it hurts in that it was a winnable game against your rival and you find ways to not get the job done. Things don't tend to get easier in the Big Ten this year and that will be the case here as well, as the Spartans will host Purdue on Saturday.
1. Straight Up – I don't know that this is how MSU will defend Burke but I'd really like to see it happen. Northwestern had a lot of success with good, strong hedges off the pick and roll game and I suspect MSU will be able to do similar things as that's standard issue stuff for the Spartans. That's a good start. Then you figure that Keith Appling should be able to do about as good a job in containing dribble penetration as one will see against Burke, so that also helps. However, when Burke does get into the lane, I think it would be a better move for MSU to force him to score without bringing big man help. When I've seen Burke be most effective in creating for others (particularly Morgan) it hasn't been off the pick and roll out high as much as it's been off dribble penetration. When opponents have forced him to convert those chances himself, I think results have been better. Yeah, he'll likely finish some, but I think that's the lesser of two evils.
REVIEW – MSU didn't give up much on the pick and roll per se, but they really didn't defend the drive well at all. When Matt Vogrich is taking you off the dribble, you have a problem. MSU has been successful playing a tighter, higher line on the perimeter this season than they have in the past, but they've paid for it the last two games. Not sure there's much that can or will be done about it now, but they need to figure out a counter, because guys who shouldn't be successful in getting to the rim against MSU are doing just that.
2. Offensive Rebounding – Regardless of whether M sticks with their man approach or if they use a lot of zone, MSU has to do a better job than they did on Saturday in terms of cashing in on second chance opportunities. M is a small team and though they've been better on the defensive glass than they used to be, this is still an area where MSU should have a distinct advantage and they must exploit it.
RESULT – MSU scored 13 second chance points off 9 offensive rebounds. The Spartans did dominate the glass in the final tally, but they didn't punish Michigan the way you'd hope to see. Give M some credit for that, though...they were aggressive and strong going to the defensive glass and didn't let MSU get all over them save for a sequence in the very early stages of the game.
3. Poise – Michigan doesn't play exactly the way Wisconsin or Northwestern do, but one thing all three of those programs share in common is that they value the ball, don't commit a lot of turnovers, and tend to play the game at a slower pace than does Michigan State. That means on the offensive end, MSU needs to value the ball better than they did in Evanston in order to maximize scoring opportunities, and on the defensive side the Spartans have to stay solid for a full 35 seconds when required. We'll see how much the younger Spartan players learned from this past weekend.
RESULT – Not good enough. MSU committed 14 turnovers and 9 of them came from their two primary playmakers, Appling and Green. Defensively, I thought MSU broke down late in the shotclock too often to feel great about.
4. Pound Green Pound – Michigan is small (even smaller without Horford to turn to) and vulnerable to strong interior scorers. MSU has the sort of lineup to do major damage in the paint if they're patient enough to work the ball inside.
RESULT – MSU got a great post game out of Derrick Nix and a couple of nice post hoops out of Payne as well. The fact is that MSU settled for jumpers a bit too often. They were highly effective whenever they went down low against the Wolverines, as expected.
5. Do They “Get It?” - The reality is that for almost all of the Izzo era, this has been a rivalry solely due to tradition. The Spartans have dominated the series during the last 15 years...but last year's sweep by the Wolverines should have any Spartan's attention and focus on making sure that it is truly the one year aberration most MSU folks believe it to be. Thing is, MSU is rolling into Crisler with a lot of new players, and few of those guys (really, only Alex Gauna and Brandan Kearney) are from the state, so you wonder if they understand all the implications of this game. If they don't now, they will by 9 PM on Tuesday night.
RESULT – I thought MSU played hard and showed some real physical and mental toughness at times, but Izzo said in the post-game he felt it was lacking a bit. I don't know...I thought that they played the way I want an MSU team to play against Michigan in terms of effort and heart. They just didn't execute well enough at either end.
SPECIAL “SIXTH KEY” - How will the game be officiated? This is an annual question in this matchup and the short version is that if the game is called tightly, that's an advantage for Michigan, which doesn't want to deal with MSU's physicality. If it's a bit looser, edge for MSU as they'll be able to impose their will on the smaller, more finesse oriented Michigan team.
RESULT – Hats off to the officials. Yeah, they missed several fouls, both ways, but the fact is that it played to MSU's advantage to not see a game where a parade to the free throw line occurred. The game was decided on the court by the players, and that's something one should always be happy to say, even if you think they missed some along the way.
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY:
THE GOOD:
1. Two headed centers – Nix and Payne won their matchup pretty handily. Combined, they scored 17 points and grabbed 4 boards to 4 points and 2 boards from Michigan's centers (Morgan and McLimans). Nix in particular was great in this one. He was active, focused and strong in the paint when MSU needed him to be that.
2. Backup wings – MSU didn't get great games from their starters, but Brandan Kearney and Austin Thornton made up the difference. Both guys delivered big shots from deep when they were needed and played steadier defense than Dawson and Wood. Kearney in particular has been a revelation in Big Ten play. He's getting it done at both ends (even with his unfortunate foul of Stu Douglass on a three in the first half) and if he continues like this, he and Thornton give Izzo a deeper rotation and some real insurance on the perimeter.
3. Shooting – Whatever MSU's issues were in this game, shooting wasn't one of them. The Spartans were 48% overall from the floor, 47% from deep and 80% in very limited attempts at the line. You can't always count on that in a road environment.
THE BAD AND THE UGLY
1. Playmakers – Neither Appling nor Green had strong games in this one. The two struggled with turnovers (5 for Green, 4 for Keith) and were only 8-20 from the floor and 1-4 from the line. The bottom line is that in order to win on the road, you generally need your best players to be your best in a given game, and that wasn't the case in this one for the Spartans.
2. Defense – Specifically the difficulty MSU had in dealing with dribble penetration. MSU actually did a pretty good job defending the three but they just couldn't contain the Wolverines in terms of to-the-basket stuff and that was very surprising to see. Even guys who aren't known for that element in their game were able to get to the hoop against the Spartans.
OVERALL – MSU now sits at 4-2 in the league. This isn't a devastating loss in and of itself but it hurts in that it was a winnable game against your rival and you find ways to not get the job done. Things don't tend to get easier in the Big Ten this year and that will be the case here as well, as the Spartans will host Purdue on Saturday.
Comments (0)