Perspective on UW Loss

by Chronicles on Feb 10, 2008 8:15 PM PST Comment 15 comments

Cross-posted at Nestor's request:

This was an ugly loss, certainly, but was it any uglier than our late-season loss to $C two years ago or our Pac 10 Tourney loss to Cal last season?

One reason (not excuse) for this loss was that the loss of Luc lined up with U-Dub's strength: rebounding the ball. The one chance the Huskies had to run with us was beating us on the boards. Per Ken Pomeroy's numbers, Luc rebounds 14% of opposition misses and 9% of our own misses; the only players that do better in these categories for us are our centers. Luc is substantially better than Aboya in this respect (amongst many others).

And while some may point to effort in the rebounding deficit, and it may have been a factor on some plays, the fact is we were facing a very good rebounding team, one that has been statistically better than ours this season. Brockman did beat Love sometimes; but other times Love had Brockman boxed out and the ball went too high and far off the rim for Love to reach, allowing Brockman to grab it himself or bat it back to one of his teammates. U-Dub got some bounced, but excels at this part of the game and deserves some credit.

The other big factor, of course, was the performance of Darren Collison on both sides of the ball. While some are saying he lacked effort, I thought it was more related to focus. He was also tentative once he got his fourth foul, and I think Coach Howland was too slow to switch his defensive assignment with Russell Westbrook's; Dentmon's ability to drive and create down the stretch was essential for them to outpace our comeback efforts, and Collison's hands were tied by the foul situation. If Collison plays an even average game (for him), we probably win that game.

So, yes, it's a bad loss, and an ugly one. Effort may have been lacking at certain points. And while there are certainly things to correct and lessons to learn, I don't think this is the end of the world. I think this is still one of the four best teams in America, despite the lack of a consistent outside threat.

I'm loathe to bring up this next point, as I don't want anyone to misunderstand. I am not blaming the officials for this game. But let's not pretend that the officiating wasn't unacceptable, or that it hasn't been in the Pac 10 for some time. I'm not going to run through each of them, but there were at least eight or nine complete WTF calls in the game (against both teams) that jump immediately to my mind -- calls that simply defy all explanation. For what may be the premiere men's basketball conference in the country, this is simply appalling. The complete lack of consistency in what is and isn't a foul, the late whistles, refs far away from a play making calls instead of refs right in front of the play, losing track of whether or not a foul was a shooting foul(!) ... it just seems like there is no end to the ineptitude of our conference's officials. I don't know what can be done about it, but it can be sickening to see the rules so frequently turned into a farce.

And I'd be saying that if we had won, and, hey, if the officials were on their game, maybe we'd have lost by more. But the situation just does not seem to be improving, as far as I can tell.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Damn man

Thanks for the reminder. I completely forgot about DC in foul trouble. That does put things in a different light. All I know is that the DC we saw today isn't the DC we all know he can be. I am more hesitant now to call him out on effort given the foul situation, because his tentative play also characterizes a player worried about picking up #5.

Yes, there is a reason why 66 calls them Sh***y Pac 10 Refs or SPTR. I don't believe that the refs made the difference today and the way we played, we didn't deserve to win today. But as a conference, we deserve better.

by Tydides on Feb 10, 2008 8:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Though in looking at the box score

he apparently "only" had 3 fouls, though that 3rd came almost immediately in the 2nd half (so the point about his tentativeness stands, esp. as reports on the game hint that targeting him while in fould trouble was intentional).

by Chronicles on Feb 10, 2008 8:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I saw

a lack of effort from DC before the foul trouble. I was going through the replay of the game and saw it again. The effort wasn't there and that wasn't the DC we all know.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 10, 2008 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Terrible performance. But sky is not falling.

I've seen many people commenting with some variation of the theme that "It's too late for a 'wake up call.' Championship teams do not lose games this late in the season." In response to those claims, I'd just like to point out some recent history:

2006-07 Florida Gators:
Feb 17- loss at Vanderbilt
Feb 24- loss at LSU
Feb 27- loss at Tennessee
(3 losses out of 4 games playes)

2005-06 Florida Gators:
Feb 08- loss vs South Carolina
Feb 18- loss at Arkansas
Feb 22- loss vs Tennessee
Feb 26- loss at Alabama
(lost 4 out of 6, including 3 straight games)

Obviously, if we play in the middle of March like we did today, it will be a very short tournament, for UCLA. But this loss does not mean it's the end of the world for the Bruins. Hopefully, it will mean that the Bruins have seen what they are like at their worst, and it disgusts and embarrasses them to the point that they never allow another performance like that to happen again.

by insomniacslounge on Feb 10, 2008 10:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

SPTR

I don't think it can be said that we would've won today if the refs were better, or that we lost because of them. We played terribly.

But I do think they played a significant role. IMHO, the game would probably have been closer towards the end with a higher caliber of officiating. From that point, it's on us. And I generally like our chances if we're within a few points at the end, primarily based on the track record under Howland - we seem to focus better, and give a little more. We could've won with a different crew, despite ourselves.

by jaffa on Feb 10, 2008 11:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

A different crew's style

may have favored us, but they didn't gain an advantage from the refs. It was called inconsistent both ways. They got screwed on as many calls as we did.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 11, 2008 12:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If I'm reading this correctly

You're saying they didn't gain an advantage in an overarching, tactical sense?

Based on that assumption, I don't disagree; things were really screwy in this game. But, a few different/correct calls here or there, can, IMHO, result in different margins in the long run. The whole blend of consequences from changed actions is impossible to account for. Perhaps irrationally, I think the game would have been closer.

If this is purely based on numbers of calls, I can't disagree, again. But again, number of calls is a different thing from points.

I think it all boils down to this: many of us feel there were several poor calls and decisions by the referees. This changes the game by some essentially unquantifiable amount. To me, it seems like it could have been closer. To you, the net sum is zero. Some might have thought it would be a larger margin. Unless if parallel universes existed and there were some way to travel between them, there isn't really a way to solve this debate. The only thing to do is get rid of it, and fix the referees.

by jaffa on Feb 11, 2008 12:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The refs sucked

but they sucked indiscriminately. The biggest issue I have with officiating is lack on consistency. Call it tight or call it loose, but call it the same for both teams, and for the whole game. There was a definite change in the calls from the first half to the second, and that is unacceptable.
However, as been pointed out elsewhere, if the Huskies had been able to hit even a high school level of charity shots, we wouldn't have even been in the game.

Bob O. (Signholder #3)

by TuneMan7 on Feb 11, 2008 6:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea, they sucked both ways

Just like our team.

That doesn't mean the effect wasn't larger to one team or the other. For instance, I think bad calls can easily lead to feeling disheartened, possibly only subconsciously. And it doesn't have to be an obvious preference for one team or another, with random calls producing a feeling of "Well if that's getting called..." or "They aren't allowing me to do anything, so what can I do." That isn't really lacking character, it's feeling you're being screwed. And while both sides may have felt it, Washington was in its home atmosphere, with plenty of support. I think the potential difference in reactions to indiscriminate calls could have given them some amount of advantage mentally, if not directly in the score.

And on the foul shooting - they were a total of 16-30 (that's 53%) yesterday. Say they shoot 70% (a good game for a team shooting 59% on the year, but that's not the point), that's 21-30, or 5 more points than they got. Meanwhile, we shoot 1-16 from 3-pt range, 6%. If we hit 31% (still less than our average of 33%), that's 5-16, 4 more baskets and 12 more points. That is a 7 point swing. Our 3's had a larger impact than their ft's.

by jaffa on Feb 11, 2008 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The referee alibi is for losers

Reminds me of pro-KD people saying we actually beat SC a few years ago, if it hadn't been for the officiating. And then they celebrated the close loss.

Screw that! We lost to UW, no alibis.

Let's move on. We totally, absolutely control our own destiny, and that's a good position to be in.

by bluegold on Feb 11, 2008 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That SC game falls into the should category

Not "could" like this one. Only makes it more distasteful, not something to celebrate, because it still counts as a loss. And a loss is a loss is a loss, none of which are as bad as a loss to SC.

It's frustrating to me to hear people say "Great teams win when they're playing badly, and we didn't." I think, though, that we might have won. Might, could, had a chance. No guarantees. Hell, we had a chance with this lot, and we didn't take it. We didn't lose because of them. But, I would say, the chances we might have won would have been (slightly) larger with better refs. That's all I mean to say.

by jaffa on Feb 11, 2008 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Missing Luc and Roll

I was as disgusted as the rest of Bruins nation with the loss on Sunday. But, it should be a reminder that although we can win most games based on talent and coaching, to expect to win Pac-10 games without 2 of our top 7 scholarship players is expecting too much. Having swept the Oregon schools without Luc and M. Roll gave us a false sense of confidence heading into to the Washington road trip. If anyone would have told me that we would go 1-1, I too would have expected an "L" at WSU, not UW.

But, even I did not realize how important Luc is to the chemistry of this team. He is one of those true team players whose stats alone don't tell the story of what a player means to a team. On the defensive end, he makes everyone else's job easier. I doubt Dentmon would have scored so many points in the paint had Luc been there as an additional safety valve. Neither Aboya of Keefe come close to matching Luc's defensive presence. And, offensively, although Luc is not a consistent scorer, he has had his share of double-digit scoring games when DC or J Shipp have faltered.

As soon as Luc (and eventually M. Roll) return to the line-up, I am confident we will see the return of the team that trounced WSU and Arizona, not the one that tanked against SC and UW.

by Keith on Feb 11, 2008 11:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think most people are upset

with the fact that we lost, but more how we lost. If we lost because we just couldn't hit a shot or the injuries caused us to wear down late or we lacked the shutdown defender that Luc is. That's something I think most people can deal with, but a lot of posters and the players have put the blame on being outworked. That's not OK and missing a player doesn't account for being outhustled.

We're good enough to win the majority of games and with Luc and Roll (at come point hopefully) back we'll do well, however when you get to the postseason, games like this will end your season. Against Texas we didn't show up in the first half. Same was true against Davidson, USC and Washington we got outworked and out schemed. It's things like that which cause concern and will be an issue in the tournament if not fixed. Keep in mind who our head coach is though and that we've always gotten better at the end of the season so we have reasonable expectations that the issues we have will be fixed.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 11, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Outschemed

I agree that we were outschemed against USC and Washington. both teams threw something at us that we had not seen before. With USC, it was the triangle and two, which we seemed unprepared for and didn't really adjust to. With Washington, it was the double team of Love and on-ball pressure. And the stats out that these two schemes hurt us: Washington was our worst offensive performance (per kenpom stats), and USC was 3rd worst.

The weird thing to me is that these gimmicks worked and relegated us to one-dimensional offense: Yesterday, we seemed to be nothing more than Shipp or Westbrook penetrating, and against USC it was a lot of jump shots from our 4s.

So that leads me to this question: Should we be worried about Howland's inability to get the team to adjust during the game to perform better against gimmick offenses?

by BruinsRule on Feb 11, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Great insight

Imagine if only the author of this post had a blog that he'd ever update. :)

On the refs, there were eventually reversed, but my two favorite calls were both out of bounds calls, one that hit three Huskies before going out of bounds and was initially given to Washington, and one where the ball hit Dentmon as he was sitting out of bands, and was, or course, initially given to Washington. And when they can't even keep track of how many fouls a team has, well, that's pretty pathetic.

by LA Seitz on Feb 12, 2008 8:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs