Hoops Roundup: Ben Howland's Unicorn & Coachspeak On "Freshman Minutes"
Ben Howland continues to sound more out of touch as the losses keep piling up for his hapless Bruins.
Let's recall what Howland said about being impatient and taking "ill-advised" shots following the loss against Southern Cal:
Howland blamed impatience, in part, for a 28-point swing against the Bears -- UCLA blew a 14-point first half lead. The Bruins shot 47% for the game, but made only nine of 21 shots in the second half.
"We took a number of ill-advised shots," Howland said. "As soon as it got tight [in the second half], Mike Roll took a bad shot. Nikola Dragovic took a bad shot. Those are the guys who are expected to be our leadership. They have to calm us down and make sure we get a good one."
Still, the poor-shooting defense is contradicted by the fact that UCLA leads in field goal percentage in conference games, shooting 49%. While Dragovic was a dreadful one for eight from the field against California, Roll made nine of 14 shots and was the only Bruin in double figures with 20 points.
Still, Howland insists a better effort is needed. "They are our two best shooters, and we want them to take shots," he said. "But we want them to be patient and take open shots."
Pretty much rolled my eyes after reading those bites since I knew full well that his players will most likely tune him out and jack up even more ill advised shots against Southern Cal (with big chunks of its coming from you know who). Sure enough, the Bruin attempted 26 3 point attempts on Sunday night with Ragovic going only 1 for 8.
Yet, Howland came out spouting the same coachspeak following the loss against Southern Cal:
Howland then pointed to shot selection, saying, "Overall, I thought we shot too many threes."
The Bruins made seven of 26 three-point shots.
Uh really coach? I am guessing you will address the issue by continuing to play Ragovic 32+ mins a game. Howland then made a funny about "freshman minutes":
"We have a lot of young guys returning [next season] and they are getting a lot of experience. I bet we're playing more freshman minutes than anybody in the league. Our young guys will benefit from that."
Yeah, I am sure Mike Moser and Brendan Lane are really benefiting from those "freshman minutes." If anything we can pin the blame for Lane's shakiness during the crunch time in second half (Moser didn't even get to come back in the second half) directly on Ben Howland because he did not bother developing Lane through the season.
Howland kept waiting for his unicorn in form of a smooth-shooting Ragovic to blow up consistently from the three point line, while playing with a smart, focused and intense effort on both ends of the court. That effort never materialized from Ragovic and it is too late for it at this point of the season. In the process Howland's maddening player rotation stunted the development of kids like Lane and Moser, who are going to head into their second season without a lot of meaningful developmental experience from their first year in Westwood.
Lane and Moser are not the first examples of Howland mismanaging his rotation without optimizing the available freshmen potential. He never fully utilized Russell Westbrook in his first year. Last year he mismanaged the minutes of Jrue Holiday, Malcolm Lee and Jerime Anderson. Instead of getting Anderson and Lee getting much needed experience, he went all in wit DC at 1 and Holiday at 2.
He never bothered to use Lee more at the 2 (getting him prepared for this season) even when he was often more effective than Holiday defensively at the spot. Howland didn't try out using Holiday at 1 and DC at 2 (which we pleaded for number of times), which might (emphasis added) have gone a little way to keep Holiday motivated and perhaps inspired to come back for a second season in Westwood. Howland's rotation never really ended up becoming effective as the team stumbled with a 7-5 record down the stretch which included often humiliating and mostly listless losses against Arizona, Southern Cal and Villanova.
While Howland gives us our best shot to turn this program in next two years, right now my biggest fear is Howland will be mismanaging Tyler Lamb's minutes when he comes into Westwood. I can easily see the scenario of Lamb playing 7-10 mins a game, while Malcolm Lee launches all those bricks as a "shooting guard." I am almost to the point that I do not believe we would have made the run to 2005-06 Final-4, when all those injuries forced Howland to use his young talent early in the season.
Oh well, we can all get excited about waiting for Howland's unicorn in yet another dreadful game week.
GO BRUINS.
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.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
WTF, Howland?
We have a lot of young guys returning [next season] and they are getting a lot of experience. I bet we’re playing more freshman minutes than anybody in the league. Our young guys will benefit from that.
That just cries out for some research.
Yeah, guess so
That makes sense. I was reading it in the context of your mentions of BL and MM. Still doubt our frosh minutes as compared to frosh as percent of roster would be in the top half of the league, though.
by my count
U of A is killing the league in frosh minutes – nearly twice as many as we are giving.
I also think WSU is ahead of us.
If you look at it as frosh&sophs, WSU is far ahead.
Also potentially interesting –
UCLA, WSU have virtually no minutes from juniors
ASU, OSU get very few minutes from sophs
Cal gets few minutes from frosh or juniors
Stanford gets zero from frosh, very few from juirs
$C gets virtually nothing from frosh
Oregon doesn’t give many minutes to seniors, and even fewer to juniors
UW and UofA have most balanced minutes, with UW favoring sophs and juniors, UofA favoring frosh and sophs.
by britishbruin on Feb 16, 2010 7:34 AM PST up reply actions
and we might have been close to WSU in frosh minutes if TH had been healthy all season
but still nothing like UofA.
by britishbruin on Feb 16, 2010 7:36 AM PST up reply actions
Honeycutt, Nelson & Lamb
if I had to guess, would make up the core of Howland’s team next year. The rest is all wildcards, unproven and largely unknown individuals.
I know I left out Laseric Jones. But at this point, my enthusiasm wanes for junior college transfers too, unless Jones proves to be second coming of those junior college transfers that made up UNLV’s championship team that year.
Essentially, we may be shorthanded again, with an almost nonexistent bench to back up those three.
Smith will be far more ready
as a freshman than Lamb. He needs to get in shape, but I’m still not sure how effective Lamb will be in his first year.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 16, 2010 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
JA got minutes
I agree that ML really would have benefited by more minutes last season since it took him halfway into this season to learn to play under control. However, JA got plenty of minutes last year averaging 8.6. JA played in 35 games last year while ML only played in 29 (ML did average 10 minutes in those games though). JA really hasn’t looked any better this season than last season. I guess my point is that each player is different. MM seems to be more like ML in that the game is too fast for him right now and more game minutes will benefit him. But he might be just like JA and not benefit at all and hurt CBH’s chances to win.
Anderson
I am still not ready to count him out. Howland anointed him as the future pg without creating any sense of competition. As a result of which it didn’t seem like he put in any work during off-season. Moreover, he has been hurt most of this year. I think if there is a sense of real competition heading into next season, Anderson might be able to get his drive back and emerge as a serviceable option. However, I am unsure about it.
Still IMO Howland’s rotation last year didn’t make a lot of sense, especially wrt to how he used Lee and Holiday.
By Sean Farnham's count
In fact, in all of Division 1 basketball, only 6 teams have more underclassmen on their roster and none of them are going to be tournament bound.
A really awful piece
It ends with the note of UCLA fans not being “impatient” and the classic excuse of being “young”:
Losing is never accepted and nor should it be, not with the banners that hang from Pauley’s rafters, but this young team and young guards will have their time to make their statement in the off-season with how badly do they want to add to that great legacy.
I’d buy that “young” excuse if Howland made a concerted effort to use all his young players. He didn’t and regular featured a lineup featuring 3 seniors. So that post is really shallow and not well thought on Sean’s part.
agreed
It’s dumb to make that arbitrary comparison based on number of under vs upper classmen ‘on the roster’.
We do have a relatively young squad (and thin squad, based on numbers of game-ready players), and may not have any seniors at all next year. But we have not played a young team, and making an argument that we have one of the youngest teams in America when we typically start 3 seniors is just absurd.
by britishbruin on Feb 16, 2010 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
Your point is spot on
Young roster yes, but not playing young. No excuse at this point though not to go down that bench and give some of the Sr.’s minutes to the freshman/sophomores. CBH may think there is a shot at still winning the league, but he is only fooling himself.
Farnham’s article does end appropriately “but this young team and young guards will have their time to make their statement in the off-season with how badly do they want to add to that great legacy.” basically calling out the sophomores to work a little harder in the off season to play up to the potential of the scholarship they were given
by 84 on Feb 16, 2010 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
yup
we have no junior class; the seniors are what they are; the freshmen who play are doing fine; the sophomore class is massively underperforming its supposed potential.
by britishbruin on Feb 16, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
None of our seniors would be starters anywhere else -- maybe MR, but probably not
They were the role players left behind by early defections.
None had significant experience coming into this year and not one was distinguished.
We are young in experience if not chronologically.
And, we are young chronologically. Why is that important? Because we have some some freshman and soph’s who cannot body up against bigger players.
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what this year’s sophs (with the exception of Bobo) did to improve their bodies to get ready for this season. (Or, their games, for that matter.)
sjh
they are not great seniors
but ND was the one returning starter on the team, and MR has been a solid 15-17 mins a game guy every year he has been at UCLA before this year.
Other than that, I take your point.
by britishbruin on Feb 16, 2010 2:48 PM PST up reply actions
Bottom Line: The issue is talent not age.
We are not that good.
We’ve beaten the “why” to death.
We need better players. We’ve beaten the “how to get them” to death.
It’s up to CBH to get it done — it is his program.
I, for one, trust that he will do it.
sjh
yup
see my point below in accordance with what you are saying.
by britishbruin on Feb 16, 2010 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, not a fan of the post
but I think there is something to his stat (if it is indeed correct). It’s not an excuse or the tell-all of this season, but it’s another thing to throw into the pot.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 16, 2010 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
Oh I agree about that stat
Something to keep in mind. I think Sean has a lot of potential. He has been pretty good as a tv sports commentator (and I am assuming he is checking in on BN a lot as he follows us via twitter etc). I think he is capable of making his thought process on this more polished and nuanced.
why is this a relevant stat?
Am I right in thinking we have four upperclassmen (JK, ND, MR and MAH)?
Isn’t this similar to 2005-6, where I believe we had four scholarship upperclassmen (Ced, RH, “Titties” Michael Fey and Janou Rubin, who like MAH had started as a walk-on)?
We went to the National Championship game with that ‘young’ squad. The number of upper vs under classmen is much less relevant than the identity of the upper and under classmen. As 66 noted, our upperclassmen this year are role players masquerading as starters, rather than the two important starters we had from the senior class in 2005-6. We also were led by stud sophomores that year, and are getting much less from our dud sophomores this year.
by britishbruin on Feb 16, 2010 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
I wrote
That it’s a stat that is “something to keep in mind.” I like taking in all numbers and data points while forming my take on the situation. Nowhere in my comment above I laid out exactly how relevant that stat might or might not be.
right
and I wasn’t just responding to you, also to Ryan with whom you appeared to agree about the stat (who had said ‘there is something to his stat’).
It strikes me as a particularly bad (and arbitrary) stat, and I am curious as to why other people feel less inclined than me not to throw it out altogether. Not asking you to explain that it is really important, was just curious why either of you guys think it’s even worth taking into consideration while forming your take.
by britishbruin on Feb 17, 2010 7:50 AM PST up reply actions
should be
‘feel less inclined than me to throw it out altogether’
Apparently I even confuse myself with my convoluted indirect speech…
by britishbruin on Feb 17, 2010 7:51 AM PST up reply actions
For the record
I wasn’t supporting the logic of his article, just noting the one stat. Back to a thought I had upthread but haven’t (and may not) have time to look into – it would be interesting to compare percent of team minutes played by freshmen to percent of freshmen out of total players (scholarship only).
from a rough look
not counting players not listed on KenPom’s stat sheets (as I couldn’t be bothered to cross-check other sources to find out what class the insignificant players were in at other schools), our frosh are getting ~25% of our total minutes. At UofA it is ~47%, WSU it is ~28%. Others are less than us.
For Fr+So minutes, UCLA: ~58%, UofA ~69%, WSU ~88%, Stanford ~59% , Oregon ~81%, others are less than us.
by britishbruin on Feb 16, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
The issue isn't age, it's skill
The geezers all remember a game in which the two-time defending ncaa champs were blown out by 15 points at home by a team that started five freshmen. I remember that game vividly. Those freshmen were a tad different from this year’s freshmen. No tattoos. Well, that and a lot more skill plus a center named Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor, Jr.
I can't remember
why I just entered the kitchen, but I remember that game and its impact like it was yesterday.
Today, with freshmen eligible to play, it would be like a high school team beating the defending college champions. Amazing, just amazing.

by 




















