Early Post Season (Defensive) Thoughts

by Nestor on Mar 12, 2008 4:33 AM PDT in Basketball Comment 78 comments

Last few days I have been feeling a strange vibe from here and elsewhere about our basketball team. I am feeling some consternation about our defense. And this is especially uncomfortable considering defense is the foundation of Coach Howland’s program at UCLA.

So I decided to take a cursory look through our defensive stats by visiting UCLA’s section in Kenpom.com and Pac-10’s official statistics site compared those numbers to those from last two seasons (our Final-4 teams).

Year	Adj. Def. Eff. Rank (natl)	Effective FG Def %	3-Point FG Def %	2-Point FG Def %	Scoring Defense	Steals/G
2007-08	4	47.8	34.3	46.4	58.9	7.35
2006-07	2	47.6	35.1	45.7.	59.9	7.47
2005-06	3	45.9	32.9	44.6	58.7	5.74

Looking at those numbers I think we can make a strong argument that our defense compared to last two years hasn’t fallen off. Sure we have dropped a few notches. But to complain about a defense that is ranked number 4 nationally compared to number 3 last year is just silly. Also the drop off in other important categories are fairly negligible.

Also note how our opponents are scoring less (per game) compared to last year’s Final-4 team and we are actually much more aggressive in terms of steals per game compared to the team that went to the Finals two years ago.

Considering the fact that we broke in a true freshman in a starting line up were in our first year without AA, and don’t have senior defensive specialists such as Bozeman and Hollins, I think the defensive stats for this squad is downright remarkable. So in terms of just looking at numbers I think lot of the concern or unsettling feeling about our defense is off base.

But hold it … after watching the games against Bay Area schools I like many others came away with the feeling that our defense hasn’t been as sharp as it was earlier in the season. I have been thinking that it probably has to do with couple of reasons:

1) injuries to our defensive glue (with all due respect to RW) Prince Luc
2) the adjustments Pac-10 teams made against our offense during the second go around.

So I tried to drill down into just our opponents FG% and find out if we could detect any noticeable different before and after Luc’s multiple injuries and also whether the number was also impacted during the second half of the Pac-10 season.

Here are the numbers of the opposing team’s FG% based on Luc’s two injuries this season (concussion against Southern Cal (Pauley) and ankle sprain against Arizona (Pauley).

I broke up the Pac-10 season in following segments and opponents FG made and percentage numbers are in the parenthesis (following numbers gleaned from UCLA box scores on WWL:

Pre-concussion: (@ Stanford, @ Cal, UDub, WSU) [97/226, 42%]
Concussion: Southern Cal [28-46, 61%]
Post-concussion w/o Luc: @ Oregon [28/58, 48%]
Post-concussion to pre-ankle sprain w/ Luc: ASU, Arizona [42/97, 43%]
Post ankle sprain w/o Luc: @ WSU, @ UDub [49/103 48%]
Post ankle sprain w/ Luc: @ Southern Cal, Oregon, @ASU, @ Arizona, Stanford, Cal [143/306, 47%]
Post-injury w/ Luc: ASU, Arizona, @ Southern Cal, Oregon, @ASU, @ Arizona, Stanford, Cal [185/403, 46%]

I didn’t count the games against Oregon State because IMO those games don’t tell us much.

I marked the game against Southern Cal at Pauley in bold because in that game Luc missed the entire second half in a game UCLA was up by 1 at the half (compared to the Zona game injury in which the fate of the game had been already decided as a blowout was on).

So what do we see from the data?

It appears UCLA with a healthy LRMAM came out on fire defensively in its first four Pac-10 games this season. Before getting hurt against Southern Cal at Pauley our D was holding the opposing team’s shooting percentage at 42. Without Luc our D struggle at Oregon where we were bailed out by an epic performance from KL. Then again we could also attribute to that with our issues against spread offense.

UCLA seemed to get its defensive mojo back after Luc came back from his first injury as they held the Zona schools at 43% in Pauley (the number would have been even better if not for Zona scoring meaningless garbage points in the closing mins of that blowout game).

Now after the Arizona game Luc sat out for the road trip against Washington school in which they shot 48% (49/103).

After Luc came back following Washington game our opponents shooting rate dipped to 47% (143-306), which was no doubt inflated a little by our horrific defensive performance again Cal.

Do these numbers tell us anything? I am not sure.

I guess we can conclude that prior to Luc spraining his ankle against Zona our defense with him in the lineup were holding their opponents in low 40s during the Pac-10 play.

During the period following his second injury our defensive performance improved a bit (until the game against Cal) when he returned to the line up. So yes based on the numbers I guess we can make an argument that Luc’s presence do impact our D, but its not a conclusive one. But then again I think we can also attribute to the fact that following the Arizona game, Pac-10 defenses had the Bruins better scouted in the second go around. I think it would be reasonable to postulate that played a factor in increase of the FG% of our opponents.

I think the key for us defensively during the upcoming post season is whether we can sustain our lockdown defensive intensity for 40 mins. I think it will be imperative for our team to come out with a sense of urgency in every game in the Big Dance.

I don’t think we can count on our guys to make our comebacks game after game. FWIW the comeback we made against a squad like Davidson in Wooden Classic is going to be a much more difficult proposition in the Big Dance, when there will not be another game to play. The pressure is going to be lot greater. I hope our guys can sense that urgency at least in the first game of the Pac-10 tournament and of course every game of the Madness.

So here is to our guys coming out focused and determined and play like they did against Pac-10 opponents during first half of the conference season. Here is to them showing same ferocity they specifically displayed against the Zona schools (and Washington State) at Pauley.

Hopefully that will translate into good starts in every game in which they won’t have to scrap from behind. All I am hoping for right now is for our boys to stay healthy and play their proto type Ben Ball. Let the chips fall where they may from there on.

I want to conclude this post by saying that as for me I am more than happy with how this season has turned out. Going into this season my hope was for our team to defend its Pac-10 title and position itself with a great seed in the Big Dance out in West. We have already accomplished the first goal and very close to second one. Yes, I know here everyone is anticipating banner number 12. But people should also take a step back and realize how difficult it is for a team to make the Final 4 three years in a row. As much as we like to think it is our birthright it is just unreasonable to expect us to go the Final-4 three years in a row.

To Coach Howland and our players’ credit they have positioned themselves as one of the best teams in America who will have a legit shot on paper to make another run. For that I am grateful. I will be beyond ecstatic if the current students at UCLA get to experience what Menelaus, Ajax, and yours truly experienced as students back in 1994-95.

Fingers crossed, knocking profusely on our wooden table.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 78 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I completely agree!

You cannot really evaluate this year because Bruins had the worst injuries of any team that is Top-10 nationally. From what I have seen, Bruins have played better defense this year then in the past whe you consider Collison has taken some time to get back in form on both ends of the floor and Luc has either missed or played with injuries for half or more of the conference play.

Look no further then our record. We lost two silly games to USC and Washington which were more of a result of the team not getting up for the game, on the other hand, the team found a way to win every outer tough game besides Texas which was with a clearly hobbled Collison. Oh and, they have done this with basically a 7 man rotation.

Make no mistake, this is the best Howland team so far and like always, they will be very focused going into the tourney.

CBH: 3 straight PAC-10 titles, most since CJW!

by Lakers Bruins Fanatic on Mar 12, 2008 6:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice evaluation

Even though the numbers are pretty consistent for us and there hasn't been much of a drop-off from last year's defense based on the stats, I think part of the problem is that the manner in which we've given up baskets has made the D look worse than it actually has been. We seem to have given up a far larger number of lay-ups and dunks than last year. Although annoying to see, it's not a big problem and also a fairly understandable one considering Love is just a freshman and we have battled injuries (especially Luc) and this has resulted in rotations being slower and our hedging on screens less effective. Additionally, I'd say that we have not been as aggressive in the paint on D. Love is not a true shotblocker and seems OK with giving up a few easy ones rather than "enforcing" his area. I think this is OK because if he were more aggressive on D, he'd certainly pick up more fouls and we cannot afford to lose him. Finally, we have now been scouted very well and teams are trying different ways of beating our hedges and double-teams, and this has resulted in some easy baskets in the paint.

Still, we do play effective defense and even the loss to Texas, while indicative of the trouble we will have facing uber-quick teams, was a game that went down to the wire and we did not have a healthy Collison.

Our defense may not

by ucladj89 on Mar 12, 2008 7:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good Work Nestor

Facts always help calm the nerves.

Now, all we need is a healthy team and the run to the banner will be on.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 12, 2008 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

100%

1964, '65, '67, '68, '69, '70, '71, '72, '73, 75, '95 + Gainesville x2. If you take Billy Donovan and Co. out of the equation, we're working on #14 right now.

My only question all year has been the "-AA" problem. Setting aside the paper match-ups for a sec, I still don't see anyone who's been ready for what Howland brought to the tourney. We beat some MIGHTY good squads (LSU, Memphis, KU, IU, Gonzaga among them).

See you homeboys at Staples!

GO BRUIN BLUE.

by theREAL_LOGAN5 on Mar 12, 2008 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

With and Without Luc Richard

This is a very interesting analysis. Another way in which LRMAM contributes is presumably on the defensive glass. Higher field goal percentages are bad enough for the opponent, but more second chances compound the problem. Taking the same split of the Pac-10 season which was used in the main post, the offensive rebounds per game for opponents break down as follows-

4 games with LRMAM 10
$C 8
2 games without 10
2 games with 6
2 games without 13
6 games with 7

At least post-$C, it seems pretty clear that Luc Richard made a difference as well in limiting second chance opportunities.

by islandbruin on Mar 12, 2008 7:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good post.

I think this captures exactly my feeling: A little worried because we haven't played consistently up to our ability, but downright happy to be 28-3 and looking at a # 1 or # 2 seed out WEst (again!).

With respect to the statistics, I agree that we are statistically still a very good defensive team. However, I have no problem saying that my perception is that we aren't quite as good as the last two years, and we don't exude the defense-first mentality as much as in previous years. Statistics are important, but I am of the belief that even statistics don't tell the entire story. I've watched every game, and I just don't think we are as good on defense this year(though I 100% agree that it isn't necessarily a huge concern--and injuries, no doubt, have played a role)

As ucladj89 noted, Kevin Love fundamentally changed this team - on offense and defense - and though it has been for the better, it sometimes resulted in easy baskets for the other team. Mata and Hollins were both superior shot-blockers (though Love has been better of late), and it easy to forget how much that changes an offense and affects driving guards decision-making.

In any case, as of this morning I have a feeling that the Bruins are going to play as if they have something to prove from here on out. As a result, I have a renewed sense that we are in for a special year. It's hard to expect to make 3 straight final fours, but I wouldn't bet against em!

Go Bruins!

by rfirpo on Mar 12, 2008 8:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Very good post, N.

I think one point worth emphasizing is your mention of steals in our defensive attack this year.

Last year, we had one ball-hawk defender in DC, and one lockdown defender in AA. Definitely a nice balance, IMO.

This year, both DC and RW are aggressive pickpockets on D. Granted, RW also is showing solid lockdown D in homing in on opposing gunners (even though he may not be quite as physically strong as the 6-5, 210-lb. AA), but he definitely looks for the steal more than AA used to.

Thus, we get more steals and breakways, which leads to more possessions for both sides during a game, etc., etc.

Granted, I do have concerns over the increasing numbers of layups we seem to be allowing the past 3 weeks, but I think the continuing recovery of LMRAM from assorted injuries and the possible fatigue of our backcourt both play into that. If we did NOT have the increased steals and transition points from DC and RW, however, I'd be a LOT more nervous about the situation.

Again, very good post.

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Mar 12, 2008 8:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

mental stamina

I think we are playing great, if u look at the overall season. And definitely our record proves it, as does our stats. I don't think our game is the problem, and if it ever is, CBH knows how to make the adjustments in the game that will fix that. What I think leads to our occasional sloppy game or the losses in the last two final fours is something mental. I think LRMAM said it and so did DC this last week, but for big games the Bruins feel a lot of pressure and they come out flat. I think that is what happened during the two final fours over the last two years. We play good basketball, but the mental hype made them a little off during those final fours. And that I think was the same prob when they came out in the Stanford game. Although, what I think is different this year compared to the rest (and this is solely based on opinion, no stats and i'm definitely not a coach of any sorts) is the Bruins have more mental stamina than previous years. They didn't give up against Stanford or Cal, they fought their flatness, and that's reassuring. Whether they were able to fight back because of better skill level, i don't know...but I do know this, these boys want it. There are too many players that have been on that team, been to the final four and walked away empty handed. It was that hunger that drove them during the final moments of Stanford upset. I have no worry about our skill level, (once again, opinion, no factual stats to back up), if we don't beat ourselves mentally, we'll take the lead in the beginning. But if we do, I think our mental stamina will make the difference

Plus, i think it's Alex Ferguson, coach of ManUnited who says, "the sign of a true championship team is one that can play horrible and still win the game"

by uCla on Mar 12, 2008 9:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I remember reading about hype and flatness

from Luc and DC. It perplexes me.

I understand how hype and pre-grame drama can get in your head, and how it can get you too amped up. But I don't understand how it can make you flat? They certainly looked flat vs. Stanford, but it disturbs me that some players admit to starting flat for big games--but only because it doesn't make any sense to me.

It also seems like it should be really easy to fix. Get excited bruins, lose and go home!

by rfirpo on Mar 12, 2008 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's interesting

They certainly didn't come out flat vs. WSU at Pauley (the 4 vs 5 battle) nor against KU last season. Seems strange that certain big games can make them too hyped and others don't. They need to channel their hype the way they did against WSU.

by Raisin on Mar 12, 2008 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

now this is just a theory

but when WSU vs UCLA was 4vs5 we were 5 and KU vs UCLA was 1vs2 and we were 2...maybe its because we're the underdog so there is less to lose? however, we were the underdog against UF and that didn't work...

But i agree with u, those are close enough and important enough games where whatever they did to channel their energy, they need to do it again during the tourney

by uCla on Mar 12, 2008 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

WSU game

I don't know that too many people felt that UCLA was really an "underdog" in the traditional sense going into the WSU game at Pauley (despite the rankings). Certainly not in the same way UCLA was an underdog to Memphis, KU or last year's Florida team.

by Raisin on Mar 12, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Problems on Both Sides of the Ball

18 pts in the first half against Stanford and losing by 11 for most of the game to Cal are BIG problems for a team that expects to contend. Imagine if we ran up against a Duke time like North Carolina did? Would we have been able to withstand a whithering second half comeback like that. The Bruins need to come out hard at the beginning of games and at the beginning of the second half to take control of the games, or they will get bounced by one lucky shot or one miss (Like Texas) and the season will be over. They need to find a way to score easy baskets so they are not throwing up junk as the clock runs out. They spend so much time running their offense without execution early in the shot clock, that they end up taking bad shots. That being said, I love this team, and this has been a fantastic season. They need to step it up in the Tournaments and this means the bench must contribute. GO BRUINS.

by 75NatChamps on Mar 12, 2008 9:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Question

What was Stanford's rank coming into this game? What was their record?

Are you saying a Duke team with no center and pretty shitty back courts is better than Stanford?

You sound like you don't watch a lot of basketball.

Did you watch the UNC-Clemson games this year.

Whine on.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2008 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

comments

As I am new to this board (though I have been reading it for quite some time now) I wanted to inquire if one is not allowed to speculate and at times be outright erroneous without fear of being 'attacked'. I suppose the aggressive tone is what drives some people towards internet blogs, although I am of the impression that it simply deters new members from 'daring' to voice their opinions.

I do not see a problem with raising the question if our team could mount a comeback against a Duke team that shoots the light out from the perimeter.

Perhaps I, too, am just whining.

by bruin007 on Mar 12, 2008 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are whining

As you are new to this site, I'll make it simple, and I'll let the moderators correct me if I am wrong. Because personally, I am getting sick of these stupid posts.

There is nothing wrong with stating your opinion. However, if you want to do it here, you have to BACK IT UP, otherwise it is useless drivel. There is no way to answer the question about whether our team could mount a comeback against a Duke team. How the bloody hell can you answer that question? It is a completely useless and pointless exercise, that is why they play the game. And it is not even expressing an opinion, much less one supported by any facts.

Hey, could our team beat the 1991 Duke team if each player had to wear an eyepatch and play with a thumb up their ass?

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No we couldn't

Since the Duke team already had a thumb in their arse. I know its an unfair advantage, but in this scenario, I'm confident Duke would win.

P.S. - I can back this up with photo evidence, but I think Nestor would be mad if I posted it.

by Nars on Mar 12, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Umm....

I'm pretty sure a Duke team that shoots the lights out would stand a good chance of beating us. Sh*tty backcourt? It sounds like YOU aren't the one watching much basketball.

And I'm pretty sure that Duke is better than CAL. But that's just me, you can respectfully disagree.

Let people voice their opinions. We're all Bruin fans here.

by Allofmybros on Mar 12, 2008 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So what?

What the hell does this mean? This is like ESPN giving you the winner of the BCS championship before the game...based on the EA Sports video game.

OK, fine, a Duke team that shoots the lights out would beat us. Wow. That is just pure gold. Here's another one for you: a Central Arkansas Junior College team that scores more points than us would beat us. You can take that to the bank.

This is not a message board. No one cares about an unsupported opinion about a hypothetical situation.

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

Any backcourt that features a clown like Paulus is shitty.

I hope we get a shot against those jokers from Cameron. I would love nothing more than DC and RW shoving the orange down his throat.

Cal is not chopped liver. They have had a bad season. But they have a lot of talent and probably do pretty well in top heavy ACC where a team like Duke w no legit 5 can finish in the top-2. I'd be surprised if a team like Duke would actually win 10-11 games in the Pac-10.

We may never get to find out how we will do against the Dukees though because they will probably choke against some powerhouse named VCU.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2008 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

How do you justify your comment that the Duke backcourt is shitty just because Paulus is in it? Paulus is not a great PG, but he is a good PG. 11 ppg, 42% from the field and from the 3, 85% from the FT line, 102 assists to 46 TO for a better than 2-1 A-TO ratio, and 48 steals...he's a good PG. He's a really annoying kid, and I wouldn't trade DC for him, but come on.

Duke's starting SG is I believe DeMarcus Nelson, who is averaging 15 ppg on 50% fg shooting, 42% from the 3. He's also averaging 6 rebounds per game and 3 assists. I wouldn't take him over Russell Westbrook, but the kid can certainly play.

Additionally, the lack of a good interior game places a lot of pressure on Duke's backcourt to create off the dribble and hit from the outside. As evidenced by their record this year, I think their backcourt has performed well. While Duke's guard play is not as good as UCLA or Kansas, it hardly merits the appellation "shitty." Your opinion that Duke's backcourt is "shitty" is not supported by the facts. If you want to verify my stats, here you go.

http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/players/

by ucladj89 on Mar 12, 2008 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok you got me

I hate Duke basketball almost as much I hate SuC football. And I do believe those guys are over-rated living off the reputation and playing in an overhyped ACC (bruinhoo did a great post recently re major conference strengths).

I probably shouldn't have the word "shitty." But then again I just hate that program that much and won't apologize for it. I think if our guys get their hands on Duke team, we are going to destroy them defensively.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2008 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh

no "gotcha" here. I agree that they often get the hype and the constant media fawning (see: Dukie V) gets nauseating. And they really haven't done much of late to justify the hype: last year's first round flameout and they haven't been to a FF in several years IIRC. And I can't blame yuo for knocking Paulus-that youtbe of him flopping when no contact was ever made just cements the general impression of him as a Wojo wanna-be.

Still, give credit where it is due. Kruaoyanoejaski is a great coach, although to what degree is open to debate, and Duke has been THE program over the past 20 years or so. I would like to see us take on Duke-with their shooting and driving they would give our defense all it could handle. Of course, they'd have no answer for K Love,and I think our speed at guard would limit their ability to drive-Paulus is no Augustine. If they were limited to strictly a perimeter team, I think UCLA would win going away.

by ucladj89 on Mar 12, 2008 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duke had some good years

But they have no where close the program we have been last 3 years and they are not catching up with us anytime soon. I'd like to get our shot against them so it is clear to those Dukees just like its to the Mildcats that the Bruins are back where they belong.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2008 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Part of my irritation comes from the fact that Duke already gets way too much undeserved publicity, and I feel like we don't need to discuss them any further on a UCLA blog. It doesn't even look that we'll be in the same bracket, so unless we meet them in the Final Four, which I think is unlikely, I don't want to think about them any more than I have to. Perhaps discussing a potential rematch against Kansas would be more interesting or worthwhile.

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"They need to"

avoid listening to you and keep listening to their coach. Are we watching the same team? You bring up Duke vs. North Carolina? UNC hardly plays defense. "Throwing up junk as the clock runs out"? Yet somehow, we are one of the most EFFICIENT offensive teams in the country. Efficient means you take good shots and score a lot per possession.

Quit coming up with imaginary foes. "Would we be able to" blablabla, that is so annoying and completely useless. That is why they play the game.

Posts like this are truly irritating and reek of a sense of entitlement. Basically, your comments can be summarized as "Bruins need to play perfect basketball and dominate the other team from the get-go, otherwise we stink and we will lose."

28-3. After a while, it's not just luck anymore.

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

further

I see the whole argument as futile as its pretty clear that we may come from two different schools of thought. Yes, any statement or declaration should be supported by fact. Otherwise it is useless banter.

However, there are those of us who want to 'try' to contribute with our observations and perspective yet lack the time or expertise to find or interpret the stats to back them up. For those instances, is a simple preface explaining our limitations sufficient? If not, then this forum will quickly turn into a President's cabinet filled with party members! Difference in perspective is to be celebrated, not shunned.

(My apologies for the awful metaphor).

by bruin007 on Mar 12, 2008 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

'observations and perspective' w/o facts

People are not coming here to get "observations" and "perspective" not based on any facts. There are already enough Dick Vitales of the world to give us that kind of take.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2008 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

solution

Thank you. That answers my original question sufficiently.

Glad that I had the chance to participate in an internet debate that did not end in a total flame-war.

Now if only you'd had some questions/topics related to European soccer... :)

by bruin007 on Mar 12, 2008 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure!

Euro soccer, any time! How about this great tidbit? It's hilarious! I guess at Real Madrid, the money is spent on past-their-prime players, not on anyone with brains. Too funny!

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

how about the FA cup

one team from the premiership left, and its the boys from pompey, wow...being a tottenham fan i would of loved to see us match our recent success in the carling cup and winning our 3 most recent darbys against the blues, hammers, and goons.

My only hope is that the recent success of lower divisions in the FA cup isn't forshadowing any sort of resurgence form the mid majors in the big dance lol.

go bruins!

O.A.

by Ollie on Mar 12, 2008 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

problems abound!

You have nothing to worry about as a Tottenham fan. The spurs are in the midst of a great come-back and hopefully they can keep it up all the way through next season.

The Champions-League is in my opinion, where the greatest concern lies. Four British teams in the Quarter-finals.

Despite being a life-long Liverpool fan - used to have season tickets at the Kop - I feel that the influx of money in the Premiership is bringing into question the true value of sports. Although I am not fond of the Draft System in American Soccer (MLS) I think that its successful implementation in Basketball, Football, and other sports is an excellent method of keeping the teams fairly competitive.

When oil money from Russia buys Premierships in England, I start to wonder if we Europeans got lost somewhere along the way. Its embarrassing.

I understand it will never happen, but Professional Sports in Europe really have something to learn from the Professional Leagues in America (read: wage-caps, drafts, securing future talents an education to fall back on, etc...)

I've talked to quite a few players on both the basketball and football team about this, and they've all expressed their delight at earning a UCLA degree while prepping themselves for the Pro's. It's a win-win situation.

and as always: Let's Go Bruins!!!

by bruin007 on Mar 12, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The one and only big time soccer game

I saw was at White Hart Stadium. Gazza and Gary Lineker were on the Hotspurs, so that tells you how long ago it was. I was being entertained by some chaps and blokes so we got the luxury box, where the bookies came to us for bets. I lost the bet on who would score first, and in what minute and so on. That was during my drinking days, so I remember very little other than the fact that the guys could run for a long time without getting tired out. Sort of like Westbrook and Collison.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2008 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

despite being a spurs

fan because of my dad...I've never been to the lane, but i had the amazing opportunity to see the charity shield (man u/chelsea) at the new wembley stadium...that was one of the more amazing sporting events I've been to in my lifetime and stadiums that I have ever seen...everyone who visits england must see some cricket at lords, rugby at twickers, and a soccer (football) match at wembley.

These experiences have opened up my eyes as a fan of sport...and nestor my english blood may be part of the reason i turn into such a lunatic while watching the bruins, so as always i apologize in advance. and for anyone that cares we've just lost to PSV on penalties : (

yid army! and go bruins!

O.A.

by Ollie on Mar 12, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

AGH

Chimbonda and Jenas....damnit.

That was quite the goal from Berbatov though.

COYS.

by jaffa on Mar 12, 2008 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow what a volley

i was only following the game tracker at work so thanks for the highlight. Tough result though...i'm always on the wrong side of penalties whether its england or tottenham. the world cup was just devastating, i've never cried that much from sadness in a sports match, that really stung.

but like my dad always says, since the hand of god, england has learned to live with that kind of disappointment and almost expect it. argh...i'll stop the banter about england, looks like its time for cal again lets go bruins

O.A.

by Ollie on Mar 12, 2008 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not worried about our defense.

Keep in mind the insane depth and quality of the Pac 10 this year, and then take a look at those numbers. I'm pretty happy with them to tell you the truth. And our guys always play their best ball in the Big Dance. They'll be playing lockdown D, don't worry.

by ARez on Mar 12, 2008 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

my post below was made without seeing your comment

by Dienekes on Mar 12, 2008 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty compelling stuff

I would add that the level of competition differs from year to year. Thus, we might put out the same defensive effort but get different results because we played better competition (this is my perception at least given that USC, ASU, and Stanford are all improved over last year--plus Texas is better than West Virginia). Thus, arguably, this is our best defensive team over the past three years. I think most people here agree the biggest difference is Love replacing Mata-Real at center, but other than that, the personnel is essentially the same (if we are willing to call the swap of RW for AA to be a wash). At the end of the day, the conclusion remains that this is a pretty darn good defensive (and offensive) squad. We are good enough to win it all, but so are a number of other teams. Let's see who is left standing.

by Dienekes on Mar 12, 2008 9:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Possessions per game

Let's see the stats for number of possessions per game and do the math to see if our points per possession on offense and defense are better or worse than the last two years.

If we've allowed a point more per game than 2 years ago, that might be ok if we are indeed playing a faster game. We might also find that our offense is better (or worse) than we all think.

by mizzou on Mar 12, 2008 9:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Defensive ranking

The actual ranking from Pomeroy is based upon his calculation of points/possession, adjusted for the strength of opposing offenses (he calculates what the numbers would be against a D-1 average opponent. As UCLA's average opponent is well above NCAA average, the defensive P/P is reduced (and Offensive is increased). For the numbers:

2007-08:

Defensive Rank = 4. "Adjusted": 84.4 points/100 possessions (0.84 points/possession). "raw": 91.2 points/100 possessions (0.91)
Offensive Rank = 4. "Adjusted" 120.6 points/100 possessions (1.21 points/possession). "raw": 114.2 points/100 possessions.
Pace: 66.0 possessions/40 minutes. (65.1 Raw)

2006-07:

Defensive Rank = 2. Adjusted: 84.0 points/100 possessions (0.84) raw: 92.5/100 possessions (0.93)
Offensive Rank = 23 116.8 points/100 possessions (1.17). raw: 110.0/100 possessions (1.10)
Pace: 64.3 possessions/40 minutes. (64.3 raw)

2005-06:

Defensive Rank = 3. Adjusted: 85.1 points/100 possessions (0.85). raw: 92.7/100 possessions (0.93)
Offensive Rank = 28 113.0 points/100 possessions (1.13). raw: 108.1/100 possessions (1.08)
Pace: 62.8 possessions/40 minutes (62.8 raw)

When adjusted for opponent strength, the defense is exhibiting the same effective efficiency as last year's team (0.844 v. 0.840 points/possession); the difference itself accounts for a fraction of a point per game, but we are playing at a slightly faster pace (66.0 v. 64.3 possessions/game). The overall effect is:
2007-08: 55.7 PPG (59.4 Raw)
2006-07: 54.0 PPG (59.5)
2005-06: 53.4 PPG (58.2)

Offense is, of course, the flip side of the faster pace = more points allowed point. This year's offense is noticeably more efficient than either of the Final Four teams (1.206 v. 1.168 v. 1.130 points/possession). As noted, this year's team does play at a faster pace than the prior two teams. The result, factoring in Pomeroy's adjusted figures:
2007-08: 79.6 PPG (74.3 raw)
2006-07: 75.1 PPG (70.7)
2005-06: 71.0 PPG (67.9)

The numbers show that, while the team is playing at a faster pace than prior years, the efficiency of the D has not been negatively affected. The additional points allowed are directly correlated to the additional possessions. The Offense has, as many have stated, become much more efficient this season as compared to others. The greater efficiency combined with the increased scoring chances more than balances out allowing our opponents to have more scoring chances. To illustrate, the average margin follows:
2007-08: + 23.9 PPG (+14.9 raw)
2006-07: + 21.1 PPG (+11.2)
2005-06: + 17.6 PPG (+9.7)

While the team is allowing 1.7 points per game more than the 2007 team, the offense is scoring an additional 4.5 points, resulting in an average margin of victory a whole 2.8 points greater than 2007 (and 6.3 points more than the 2006 team!).

We may have a sense that the Defense isn't quite up to the level of prior years due to the greater number of scoring chances that we allow this year. By Pomeroy's calculations, at least, this year's D is just as good as last year's, and in fact slightly better than 2 years ago, while the increased offensive efficiency more than makes up for the greater number of chances given to the opposition.

by bruinhoo on Mar 12, 2008 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good work

Thanks.

by mizzou on Mar 13, 2008 5:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wowzers. Great work, hoo.

Thanks for doing the legwork.

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Mar 13, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone think a loss in the Pac-10 Tourney would be

a good thing???

There was a post last week from Bruin Blue (I think) that did an analysis of games we have won in a row over the season. The average being 7. Right now we are at 7 wins in a row.

In my mind the Pac-10 Tourney is B-sh!t. It merely provides the other nine teams who didn't win the Pac 10 title to play their way into the tourney.

I see no problem losing on Thursday or Friday and then running off 6 more wins to bring home banner #12. It is much, much more difficult to win 16 in a row then 6 or 7. Not many teams can claim to have one that many consecutive games this year. (Memphis and a few others?)

Let's sit Luc and limit the minutes of RW and DC and rest them for the NCAA tournament- the one that really counts. Play AA2, Keefe, Mata and Stanback and see what happens.

I don't buy into the momentum argument. This team is talented enough to push through and win when necessary as witnessed in our last few games. A loss may provide additional focus.

Thoughts???

by Bald Eagle on Mar 12, 2008 9:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

hmm

I definitely agree with your theory...however, we're going to play either cal or washington in that first round, and i really want there to be no loss to either team...in fact i'd love to just crush either one.

Maybe in the second round let the bench step up and get some time in...although if we play sc and with hackett back if they win, then it might give them bragging rights...but who cares. The further we go in the Main tournament are the only bragging rights that really count

by uCla on Mar 12, 2008 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We need to win the first game

I don't care what happens after even if we take on Timmeh's thugs in the second game.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

pat forde

i just saw this in a March 11th article by bruin hater forde:

"Mayo will be the biggest reason USC upsets UCLA in the semis and beats Stanford in the final" -about the pac 10 tourney...

wait i'm confused, would this be the same Mayo RW suppressed the last time we played 'sc?

by uCla on Mar 12, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's because

He now has the awards...so he must be better.

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only a crew jock..

..can get so much oxygen in his brain to think as clearly as you do (replies above) and be this funny!

Well said!

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Mar 12, 2008 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, that decides it

We don't even have to play. The experts have explained why we won't win. Whew. I thought for a second we would have to sweat out some more games and all that. I'm kind of relieved now. Boy, I wish we had won. Well, better luck next year. Maybe some experts will let us win some games.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2008 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tough loss

With Lorenzo Mata-Real going 0-26 from beyond the arc, we simply had no chance. You knew after OJ Mayo's dunk (the one where he elevated from mid-court) that we just had no shot in this one. And Westbrook dunking on his own basket was just the final nail in the coffin.

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why, thank you!

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why...

Does losing the first game really hurt us that much. We're still a lock for Anaheim and Arizona. And it really doesn't matter if we're a 1 or a 2 seed. I almost prefer coming in as a 2 seed because it may give us a little something else to play for-like proving to others we are worthy of a 1 seed.

by Bald Eagle on Mar 12, 2008 10:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

#1 seed is better then #2

So I would try to take the first game and not suffer the same fate as last year when that loss cost us a seed.

CBH: 3 straight PAC-10 titles, most since CJW!

by Lakers Bruins Fanatic on Mar 12, 2008 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

..especially..

since we'll be playing either Da-Bearz or the Face-stuffing Huskies. On one hand, it's an opportunity to show the MSM buttholes last weekend was no fluke and, on the other, a chance to stuff those mutts for their thuggery and send them packing back to Seattle with their tails between their legs.

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Mar 12, 2008 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if UW beats Cal

I think our entire team should play with facemasks.

by bruinofthenorth on Mar 12, 2008 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL!!!!!

by uCla on Mar 12, 2008 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This year's stats are actually better

At this point in the year, our defensive stats are better than they were last year. The numbers Nestor posted were from after the NCAA tournament. We ratcheted up the defense in each of the last two years, especially those games in which we held Memphis and LSU to 45 points, Indiana to 49 points and Kansas and Pitt to 55 points. Going into the tournament, our defensive efficiency was ranked 6th in 2006 and 8th in 2007. We finished 3rd and 2nd due to the stellar performances in the tourney. Let's hope we have similar performances this year. If we do, we'll end up 1st or 2nd in defensive efficiency and likely be hanging banner #12.

by BruinsRule on Mar 12, 2008 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If you consider that our offense...

... is in some ways actually better (though still inconsistent) than last year's offense, combine that with the fact that our defense is at least comparable to last year's, then look out below.

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Mar 12, 2008 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I appreciate all the work you did to make post

Thanks again for doing the work, Nestor.

If I wanted to make a similar point to the one I alluded to in a post a couple of days ago, I would go back through and find all the times when we've missed defensive assignments in games from this year and compare that to games from last year, or two years ago, but that would take a mammoth amount of time, effort, and energy.

So, from my lack of commitment, comes my agreement.

Well played, sir.

Watch out when I'm retired!

I'll only say one thing about last year, about our loss to Cal in the Pac 10 tourney. I really think the only reason we lost is because Ubaka had an UNREAL game. It was the best game, I think, that Ubaka has ever played. He hit threes from beyond the arc, WAY beyond the arc. It took an unreal effort by Ubaka to beat us.

This year seems different only in the sense that Cal didn't seem (to me at least) to have any players with amazing games.

I know I should be happy that our kenpom offensive efficiency numbers are up, and I know that i should be glad that our defensive efficiency numbers are stellar....

but would we shut down kansas this year the way we did last year? I want to say yes, of course, but there's something that keeps me from doing that.

I hope your facts are right, and that my feelings are wrong. Maybe I'm just scared to get my hopes up about banner 12.

And once again, I really appreciate you doing the WORK (cause even though it's fun, it is still work) to demonstrate numbers behind your reasoning.

Carlstone

by woodenwannabe on Mar 12, 2008 11:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That is pathetic

You can't support your argument with any facts and research so you come back with the lame I don't have time to look things up excuse.

I also agree with everyone else. Your username is very insulting and inappropriate and demeaning to the cherished legacy of our Coach.

Weak.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ease up, blue

Let him have his opinion. From where I'm standing, N, I'd like to look at WHERE the other teams' buckets are coming from. RW and DC have been absolute beasts, the only time I remember them getting shredded was, you guessed it, UW, Texas, and USC. Against other teams, however, I think more baskets have come from miscommunication between the bigs and being sluggish returning after hedging our screens. My only problem with K-Love, and he's been getting better, is that he still doesn't have the speed and conditioning to double the post or hedge as well as Mata, Alfred, or Luuuuuuc.

As to the "I don't care if we drop the first or second game" crowd... I want to win. However, I know it'd be helpful to rest up and we'll get a tune-up against our #16 or #15 seed before the tough games start. So I don't mind losing either... I just want Josh to take 20+ threes in the games we DO play and get that stroke back! We need you, buddy!

by Allofmybros on Mar 12, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Our 3 losses

Texas: It was DC's second game after coming back from his severe sprain (tear?). I think we can cut him some slack if he was not in sync with rest of his team-mates.

SuC at Pauley: We played the entire second half with LRMAM and LMR. We were up at the half time before we collapsed in the second.

UDub in Seattle: We played that game w/o LRMAM.

Our coaches and players will never use injury as an excuse. So I will go ahead and say it - not having Luc in those games hurt us defensively and things might have been a little different if we had a well oiled DC against the Horns.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cal didn't have players with amazing games?

Boykin 8-12 18 points

13 points from Christopher and 21 from Anderson is expected, but 18 points from a 7.7 ppg player is pretty good. Especially shooting 66%.

by Tydides on Mar 12, 2008 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

its a great point T

but i think that's largely because harden was out.

I'm also pretty sure we're going to be seeing more performances like that out of boykin. he was the california state player of the year his senior season, and i'm not sure, but since he went to duke its a pretty safe bet to say he is a mcd all-american.

i just didn't know, until this game, that he could hit those 15 ft to 19ft shots with such consistency from outside.

by woodenwannabe on Mar 12, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

add

just wanted to note that this was pointed out before me by the poster right below, mizzou.

by woodenwannabe on Mar 12, 2008 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boykin

I thought having Cal having Harden out and Boykin in created a matchup problem for Love. Boykin was smaller and quicker and harder for Love to defend. Harden would have been easier to guard and the Cal offense would have needed to look elsewhere for offense.

by mizzou on Mar 12, 2008 12:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not to be contrarian...

First off excellent stuff as usual Nestor. I have loved this season.

The only thing I would question is the general concensus that the team needs to come out with a sense of urgency, win or go home, etc.

It just seems to me that the team executes much better when they play loose. They are always focused, especially on the defensive end, but they really hit on all cylinders when they're having fun and pushing their limits when they have the ball. I can live with the turnovers and some of the quick shots that come with that.

My point was that this team seems to respond to pressure games by coming out tight - they respond to pressure in the second half of games better, when that sense of urgency turns into a more attacking style.

Anyway, I'm having some trouble articulating my thoughts, but I think if anything does this team in this year it may be the pressure of the high expectations. When they play to their capabilities, focused on defense and attacking and loose on offense, I don't think there's a better team in the country this year.

by haywood nighttrain on Mar 12, 2008 12:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you are right

I think the players know that this year is their shot. I think they expect KL to leave after this year and they feel the pressure to at least duplicate their Final Four appearance. These things can be very taxing on the mind of 19-year olds! I think part of it also comes from the no-nonsense style that Ben Howland has instituted, a strong emphasis on taking care of business. Our strength lies in playing organized, half-court defense, and being loosey-goosey does not fit into that very well, even if it's just on offense. Those are two things that, IMO, are very difficult to combine. There aren't many players in the country who are both great defenders and prolific scorers, much less on any one team...

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think some of it is tempo some pts. in the paint

As for the tempo, look at kenpom's stats for the past three years and our possesions are steadily going up. What does that have to do with defense you may ask? Part of our success on D the past two years has been due to making other teams work really hard when they are on the defensive end. Not only does it tire out their legs, but helps to crush their spirit when they have to play almost the entire clock only to give up a late basket. While we do that still to some degree, much more of our offense is due to fast breaks, be they off of steals or Lazer Love outlets.

As for points in the paint, while we have benefited by have Kevin a great deal on offense, and have our best inside threat in years, he isn't the defender that Mata-Real is. Mata-Real pretty much challenges everything, whereas Love will back off from time to time to make sure he doesn't pick up a cheap foul. I would guess our opponents might get two pretty uncontested point blank shots a game due to Love, which might explain the higher FG percentage and why we are feeling uneasy about our defense.

My feeling is although our opponents FG percentage is up a bit, I don't think they are going to the line as much. This I think is a good trade as it keeps our guys out of foul trouble and with our shorter bench, that is key.

by Free the 16 on Mar 12, 2008 12:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Great Comments

Free, your throughts are spot-on and are a nice addition to the analytical data provided by Nestor.

I agree that when teams aren't working as hard on defense because we're scoring so well in transition (steals and great outlet passing) opponents have the legs to perform more efficiently on offense.

Also agree that teams are attacking the basket more because they fear Love less than Mata as a shot blocker and someone who will contest less shots. But I prefer Loves' cautiously aggressive play as he still defends well, gets other team's bigs in foul trouble and avoids cheap calls.

Go Bruins!!

by Bald Eagle on Mar 12, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hypothetical Duke/UCLA posts

This board must be better than to state theoretical "what-ifs" and then get pointed and personal responses that shed no light on anything other than an exercise in "who has the bigger dxxx". I know the PAC-10 tournament has yet to start, spring football is a few weeks away, so minds wander.... I suggest we all make an effort to "move upmarket" with our comments and responses. After all, this is the grownups website. There are plenty of other "romper rooms" out there.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Mar 12, 2008 1:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, though most of

the blame goes to the persons slamming those creating the hypotheticals. What is a more useless post--the person who wonders if Ucla will beat Duke if they meet this year, or the person who attacks that person because he or she got angry? This time of the year is all about who could and would and might beat who in my opinion.

Earlier in this thread someone slammed someone for coming up with useless hypotheticals, only to thereafter embark on a soccer discussion (so far as I could tell).

by rfirpo on Mar 12, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Read carefully

The person who started the soccer discussion is the same one defending the hypotheticals.

My problem, personally, is not with those expressing the opinions, but rather with those opinions being offered without anything concrete to back them up.

Furthermore, the hypothetical situation that was presented was whether UCLA could "withstand a run by Duke like the one that UNC had to withstand before beating them". The question was not whether UCLA could beat Duke but whether we could withstand a run by Duke if we were up by a wide margin. I find that completely ridiculous.

Finally, I have a big problem with anyone discussing Duke basketball on a UCLA blog when they already get so much exposure in the media. Once the tournament brackets are set, then we can discuss who could and would and might beat who. Until then, I could care less.

by tasser10 on Mar 12, 2008 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me too

We didn't create BN so people can go ga ga over Duke. I am sure there are plenty of forums on ESPN where one can do that as much as he or she wants.

by Nestor on Mar 12, 2008 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nestor

I never mean to speak for you or the frontpagers. But some of these posts are just annoying, as annoying as when ESPN asks voters if the 2007 Giants would beat the 1974 Steelers, or some stupid poll like that. I don't mean to shoot people down, but sometimes they seem to drop by and their only comment is "I think so-and-so could beat us", not to mention all the others who seem to know how our team should be playing better than Howland does.

by tasser10 on Mar 13, 2008 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The big picture

rfirpo...IMO anyone who posts here should sit back, before hitting enter, and see if what he/she is posting makes sense, knowing it will be widely distributed, and reflect on that individuals common sense, maturity, etc. and especially the quality of the prose on BN. Most of the above is not up to "snuff" in terms of quality regardless of the other factors.. I am used to seeing better here and thought I would weigh in with my thoughts.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Mar 12, 2008 4:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks Bill

I don't see any problem with some of the long time community members (who have been with us since the very first months) voicing concerns about takes hat are devoid of facts.

Earlier this am I read over coffee someone commenting how KD was a DG hire. I mean comeon people. At least look up some of the discussions here before offering a take like that. I can see why some people would lose patience reading nonsense like that.

We don't want this place turn into the cesspool message boards are, where drive by posters can get away with offering "takes" with no facts. If someone one is going to offer up something here for the first time he or she should think it through.

This may not please everyone. So be it. We have built this place by attracting people who offer posts with substance. We want to keep it that way.

Also it goes without saying we will never tolerate any kind of attack on any of our frontpagers.

Thanks again to everyone.

GO BRUINS.

by Nestor on Mar 12, 2008 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs