Three Takeaways from Maryland’s Huge Win Over Michigan State
Posted by Deepak Jayanti (@dee_b1g) on December 31st, 2014Despite entering its conference opener against Michigan State with a 12-1 record, Vegas listed Maryland as a six-point underdog in its Big Ten debut. A potential reason for this could have been that Tom Izzo had never lost a Big Ten opener at the Breslin Center and Mark Turgeon’s squad was expected to struggle against a defensive-minded team such as Michigan State. Despite these doubts, the Terps pulled out a gutsy win in double-overtime — a victory cementing the notion that Maryland can survive a tough Big Ten schedule and potentially challenge Wisconsin for the conference title. Here are three key takeaways that explain some of what happened in last night’s game:
Dez Wells led the Terps to a huge win over the Spartans on Tuesday. (Charlie DeBoyace/The Diamondback)
- Maryland outrebounded Michigan State by 16 boards. Mark Turgeon’s squad is generally considered weak on the rebounding front because the Terps have a bunch of stretch forwards attempting to hold their own on the glass. Jake Layman and Evan Smotrycz weren’t expected to outdo Michigan State’s more durable big men like Branden Dawson and Gavin Schilling, but the pair came up with 17 boards, same as their Michigan State counterparts. The small-ball lineup could hurt the Terps in the long run, but its versatility helped them in East Lansing: Dez Wells and Richaud Pack combined for 12 rebounds from the wings and they came up with a number of key offensive boards during overtime. If they can depend on Smotycz for outside shooting and still rely on Layman or Wells to crash the boards, that gives Turgeon plenty of options. Damonte Dodd also did an excellent job neutralizing Dawson in the final minutes of the game — a key substitution that worked out well.
- Maryland’s 0.35 assist-to-turnover ratio. While the rebounding margin was important to the game’s outcome, the Terps’ offense is still very much oriented around isolation plays. Melo Trimble tends to dribble around for most of the shot clock while several big men take turns setting screens at the top of the key until he finds an opening. Once Travis Trice locked him down, the ball was swung to Wells, who would create a one-on-one move. Turning the ball over 21 times, as the Terps did last night, will not lead to many Big Ten road wins. The saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” doesn’t work very well here because Turgeon still needs to figure out a better way to mesh Trimble and Wells. That said, the team should only improve as it spends more time on the floor together, leading to fewer mistakes.
- Denzel Valentine and Travis Trice shot 8-of-31 from the field. It was painful to see Izzo’s backcourt perform so poorly against a so-so Maryland perimeter defense. Neither Trimble nor Wells are excellent defenders, but Denzel Valentine and Trice had no room to create their own shots. Valentine in particular appeared to be extremely lackadaisical and flat-footed while Trice hesitated to drive past the free throw line even when he found openings off the screens. Relying on Dawson to carry the offensive burden won’t work because he just isn’t wired to take over the scoring load. This behavior was especially obvious after his shot was blocked by Dodd — he barely attempted another shot after that possession. Trice and Valentine have the ability to score but they need to be smarter with their shot selection and drive the lane, especially against mediocre defensive teams.
Is this the first time you’ve watched Maryland play? Two big inaccuracies here – one, they don’t generally depend on isos, in fact their motion offense has been a thing of beauty most of the season including wins over AZ St, Iowa St, and Ok St. MSU did a great job defending ball screens which forced Trimble and Wells to make plays. I do agree that Wells will need to figure out how he can mesh with Trimble and Layman – the latter should have seen many more touches.
Second inaccuracy is the “so-so” MD defense. Whatever you might say about MSU’s poor shooting, a big part of that was the swarming d that allowed very few easy looks over the course of the game. Also, the defensive efficiency numbers show the Terps to be a very good, if not quite elite, defensive team. The only thing they don’t do we’ll is force turnovers.
Jeremy – Thanks for the note. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the Terps play. The motion offense may be the fundamental to their offense but based on what I’ve seen, the offense tends to stall at the top of the key with Trimble or Wells until a specific opening develops. I would expect to see a bit more ball movement and more baskets made from assists if the motion offense was really applied. 48.4% of MD’s FG attempts come from assists which isn’t a very high #. On the flip side, 49.4% of their FG attempts result in free-throw attempts which makes sense b/c Trimble and Wells are pretty good at breaking down their defenders in isolation.
Regarding the so-so defense, I agree that Layman and Trimble rush the opposition quickly and the 0.91 PPP on defense agrees with that observation. However, giving up 76 points to UVA and 73 to ASU indicates that their defense still needs work. And I agree with you that their on-ball defense on Valentine and Trice could have led to the poor shooting too.
Thanks for reading. Overall, this is an exciting team to watch and I think they’ll do very well in the Big Ten.
D