Howland’s Gutless Mismanagement Is Leading To A Toxic Atmosphere Around UCLA
by Nestor on Feb 21, 2010 8:26 AM PST
in Basketball
Email
PrintWe don't really have to do much analysis of what took place last night against Washington. Everything we needed to know about this year's UCLA basketball team was evidence in Bruins' first offensive possession, when senior scrub Ragovic put up an ugly, impatient, awkward looking jump shot, and then pathetically flailed his arm to draw a foul.
That possession of yet another impatient Ragovic jump shot was everything Ben Howland has preached against (publicly) this season imploring his team to show patience on offense. Yet Howland continued to give favorable treatment to perhaps the worst starter in recent history of UCLA basketball by not showing the courage to sit him down and send a message to rest of the team. While Ragovic put together yet another ugly display of "team basketball," it is Ben Howland who is responsible for enabling him and setting the tone for rest of the team.
The frustration with Ragovic and Ben Howland is not just about anger about minutes of an awful basketball player, who has embarrassed and disgraced the four letters both on and off the court, it speaks to a larger issue of how Ben Howland has mismanaged this program in recent years.
What is happening with Nikola Ragovic is not any different than what took place with Josh Shipp last two years, when Shipp was not being held accountable for not playing defense in number of occasions game after game. In Shipp's defense he made some memorable shots during his UCLA career and was not the same after dealing with two surgeries. Yet there were times when Ben Howland needed to bench Shipp for not playing on defense and sending a message to rest of the team that he would hold everyone to same standard (like he especially does for certain freshmen when he pulls them off the court after their first mistake).
The special favorable treatment Ben Howland has afforded to Nikola Dragovic is similar to what he afforded to Shipp, except it's lot uglier and noticeable. Last night was just a validation of what many of us have been screaming about all season, as Howland and Ragovic got called out for it on national television.
I doubt Ben Howland is humble enough to sincerely admit his mistakes and diminish Dragovic to a minimal role for rest of this season, so that he can get his younger players ready for next season, who also give our team a better chance to succeed by bringing more hustle, intensity, and brains on the court. Even if Howland does it at this point, the damage to this team's psyche is done. Plus we are already seeing signs of Reeves Nelson emerging as the next Ragovic/Shipp who gets to play chunks of minutes without bothering to show up on defensive front.
As for Ragovic, his post game comment is rich (emphasis added throughout):
The lesson from the loss being, "learn from it and forget about it," forward Nikola Dragovic said standing in hall outside the Bruins' locker room.
The guy should never be allowed back inside the Bruin locker room. Apparently per the LA Times there was commotion inside the Bruin locker room:
Inside, there had been long postgame coaches meeting, followed by a few more minutes with players, punctuated by a loud bang against the wall as it broke up.
The time alone didn't result in any clear-cut answers.
How can there be any attempt to get clear-cut answer, when the coach keeps going back to same formula over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Yes, I understand full well that we don't have any credible guard play in our team. Jay Bilas astutely called out Ben Howland and his coaching staff for miscalculating the Jrue Holiday saga, and failing to see how he was most likely going to go pro after one season. Malcolm Lee is clearly struggling as he does not look to be the answer at 1. Jerime Anderson's performance has been beyond ugly but I am willing to cut the kid some slack because he has been playing injured all season long. Mustafa Abdul-Hamid should get some more minutes, but he is not the answer as our starter.
I don't believe the final result would have been any different if Ben Howland had benched Ragovic early and also benched him to start the second half. However, what I believe very strongly that Howland needed to send a message to his team that he would not stand for his players not playing defense and quitting on both ends of the court. Instead he took the gutless route as he has been all season, by letting Ragovic set the tone. I do believe the way he has handled the minutes of Ragovic (and Shipp last season) has had a cancerous impact on the program and has disrupted the chemistry in this program.
This is why we see a freshman like Nelson speaking up (even though he should keep his trap shut considering he was just as responsible for not playing D):
"People were watching and they can decide for themselves if we gave up," Nelson said. "You know how I have to answer that."
This is why we are seeing soft spoken Michael Roll calling out his team-mates:
Roll was visibly frustrated at times with the effort of some of his teammates, who failed to execute simple passes, were seconds late on defensive rotations and put little emphasis on the glass, where the Bruins were outrebounded 33-23.
"I saw it a lot and it's frustrating," Roll said. "We were down a lot, yeah, but if we come out in the second half and we punch them in the mouth right away, we could've got back in there real easy. But we just kinda folded."
Roll also called out his team-mates (pointing to Ragovic) earlier in the week. This is an ugly situation all the way around and it is all on Ben Howland.
Howland and his team had a great opportunity to build on Thursday night's performance. Even if the game hadn't gone their way, if they came out and played hard for 40 minutes with Michael Roll and the players who are going to be called upon to make meaningful contributions next season, there would have been some positive vibes around this program.
Instead it is toxic and it is ugly around Ben Howland's UCLA program. The responsibility for it falls on the coach whose cowardly leadership (or lack thereof) from last two years has resulted in the current mess. I really hope Howland can fix this in next two seasons, but I am not sure I can trust him any longer. Last night was the most jarring example, why it is getting difficult to have faith in Howland.
GO BRUINS.
66 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Embarassed on National TV
Last night’s Bruin “effort” was humiliating. We were allegedly playing a zone defense, yet time after time WU had no problem penetrating and getting to the hoop, they had no difficulty finding the wide open jump shot.
It was sickening.
Regarding Dragovic, I almost threw my remote control through the TV after he put up that first shot. After the Wazzu victory, Tyler Honeycutt told us that Coach Howland had been preaching about “patience” and “making the extra pass”. Then Drag jacks up that first shot and I realized that NOTHING about that victory had sunk in. Did we even hit 15 seconds on the shot clock during our first 6 possessions?
Suggestion…let these kids play the rest of this season without the “UCLA” on their chests. They don’t exhibit any pride or poise on the court, so I’m sure the irony of the missing letters would be lost on them.
The say that adversity does not build character
it reveals it.
Not a lot of character being shown by our coaches or players. Unfortunately, those with lots of heart, namely Roll and Keefe do not have the abilities to match. The truly sad fact is that we can’t even say “wait till next year” because we really have no idea what to expect.
So, here is something that has been truly bugging me lately. Drew Gordon leaves UCLA because he does not play Ben Ball and he butts heads with CBH. Ragovic does not play Ben Ball, but because Howland does not pull him from games, there is not much to butt heads with. What’s going on Ben?
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
the comments that came out afterwards
included that Gordon would freak out in practice and throw tantrums. I think the ‘butting heads’ with Gordon was a lot more than just pulling or not pulling him from games.
I’d be curious to know what goes on with Nelson, particularly as he seemed closer to Gordon. Benching him for JK at the start of games still seems suspicious to me – though I acknowledge the arguments put forward for this from a basketball standpoint.
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
It's mind boggling I have these feelings
But Howland has grown sale in my opinion. He was a tough guy to grow fond of when he arrived because of his fierce personality, but what he did for the program was impossible to not love and appreciate. Now, I don’t know what has happened. Not only is this team a complete embarrassment to watch, but they’re impossible to rally around, and the same can be said for Howland right now in my opinion. I’m not calling for him to be fired, but new blood wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world in my opinion. I hope I’m wrong.
I have no idea what Nelson is saying
I read the quote above one way,
“People were watching and they can decide for themselves if we gave up,” Nelson said. “You know how I have to answer that.”
and then read his LAT comment
“We didn’t even put up a fight.”
I am confused as to what I am supposed to ‘know’ about how he has ‘to answer that’.
At least the starter who was least bad of a terrible bunch doesn’t have any random quotes out there.
He got criticism last time he answered a question truthfully
and I am sure the coaching staff told him not to do that, so he is speaking in media speak which says nothing.
by silverlakebruin on Feb 21, 2010 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
right
I guess I keep seeing these phrases ‘reported’ with interpretations embedded, and then have a hard time working out whether the interpretations are the reporter’s thoughts or the player’s…
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
on point guards
Even though it was after the game was really being seriously contested, I thought we looked better with JA at the point and ML at the 2. Gives you two ball handlers (of a sort) to handle the press, and ML made some nice cuts without the ball. I also think JA is better playing on instincts rather than trying to figure out how to attack some sort of quirky zone.
Totally predictable, unfortunately
Even the good Howland teams couldn’t beat bad Husky teams in Seattle, so what we saw last night was to be expected. Part of the problem is how Howland prepares his teams. For the last several years, the UW game has been the second game of the week, and it has been documented here that Howland’s record is much worse in the second game due to perhaps an overemphasis on the first game of the week during his game planning. The WSU/UW trip is also the most difficult trip logistically during the Pac 10 season as the trip in and out of Pullman is not easy. That being said, this is a lousy UCLA team that lacks athleticism and does not bring a consistent effort. We saw some signs of this last year in the games that Nestor noted (U of A in Tucson, $C in the Pac 10 tourney and Villanova) and we’ve seen a lot of it this year. Will Howland be able to right the ship over the next couple of years? I hope so and he deserves the chance to do so, but as I’ve said before, I have my doubts.
I understand what you're trying to say...
But please stop comparing Shipp to this guy. Josh doesn’t deserve it.
by LavinRuinedCollege on Feb 21, 2010 10:48 AM PST reply actions
+1
JS was never like ND, in any way. He might have slacked on D — but he was not the only one of his group to do so. He was a fierce competitor who overcame some pretty serious injuries to make significant contributions to the program.
PS. I love your screen name. I was living in LA and had season tickets for some of Lavin’s years and he ruined things for me, too.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Feb 21, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
I think you have a point
I was merely referring to the treatment on Shipp sometimes go even though he had lapses on defense.
One thing I will always give Shipp credit for:
He was the only one that showed any fight against Nova. He was a warrior that game when everyone seemed to just mail it in (although AA2 got into early foul trouble)
by silverlakebruin on Feb 21, 2010 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
Frustration leads to calling a great man gutless.
CBH has led 5 teams in the last ten years to the Sweet 16. He has led the Bruins to 3 conference championships, 3 final fours, 3 30 win seasons. The Bruins have become a pipeline to the NBA, with 8 of his players there now. The marks of CBH teams are hard nosed defense and poise in the clutch. He not only recruited great players, JF and AA to rebuild the program, and KL to sustain it, but he has honed the skills of DC (to a lesser extent) and PAA, LRMAM, and LMR, (to a greater extent) to take the program to the highest level. I can’t argue with Nestor that our recruiting has fallen down, and I don’t really know who was responsible for getting our great players (Keating or Howland or both.) But I have watched teams play with guts and intelligence for years, with a mark of hard-nosed play unmatched by any program in the nation. He has brought us out of the Farmer, Hazard, Lavin era, to a program where I look forward to every game, and am proud of the UCLA basketball program. This team lacks quickness and ball handling skill, all around. I can also agree that benching Drago for not playing hard would have set an example that the younger players might have followed. But I cannot stand by and accept calling a great coach gutless, simply because one would have done things differently. I’ll also point out that Drago’s minutes were cut in this last game, and the younger players played more, not just in garbage time. I doubt that anyone would have the temerity to call CBH gutless to his face, and if they did, it would be a boorish act worthy of those spoiled cross-town fans. I look forward to next year when Jones, Stover, Lamb and Smith join the TH, RN, BL and ML to form a squad that can compete for the Pac10 title. In any case, I will not stand silent without supporting CBH when, for the only time in his program, the team is down. Go Bruins.
Actually
If I had the opportunity to see Howland in an alumni function I would suggest to him in person that his treatment of Ragovic this season has been gutless. It’s the truth.
There is an alumni function on tuesday
Billed as an opportunity to ask Howland and the seniors questions.
The problem with Howland is he is stubborn
its why it took him 15 games to go to a zone, its why he wouldn’t switch his coverage assignments in the Memphis game, and its why he continues to play dragovich.
Dude has a thought, and it never changes or evolves. Ever. When he loses, he says he will do things differently, but rarely ever does, because there is only one way he is comfortable being, which is the way he was the day, year and decade before.
There are very few fields where leaders can be successful like that, and college basketball isn’t one of them.
by silverlakebruin on Feb 21, 2010 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
I did something last night I've never done before --
I checked out of a Bruin game before it was over.
I’m the guy who always believes we can win, who never leaves early, who yells at people who do.
Because of that, I’ve seen some remarkable come backs — thank you MJD and others.
I feel it my duty as a Bruin to stay and support my team so long as they are on the battle field.
Maybe, because it was on TV and I was a bit distant from it, and because I wasn’t listening to the sound — an experiment — I felt so removed from what was going on that I said “good bye” on the thread, and flipped to the Olympics. I think I said something like — “I’m going to go where people are trying to win.”
I hope that by re-booting, I will have rejuvenated my spirit and that I will rekindle some of my optimism.
Even with our obvious deficiencies, we can play much better than we did last night. And, I will continue to support this team in hopes that we will do so.
sjh
Have we been in denial these past few years?
I’ve been following Bruins Nation religiously for years, and have never really posted much because quite frankly, the brothers and sisters here at BN are hella good writers and I’ve never felt up to par. But yesterday’s debacle has really left such a putrid taste in my mouth, that I feel I’ve got to say something.
Has CBH’s success at 3 FFs masked his inability to be a creative in-game coach? Did the excruciating pain and suffering we endured during the dark lavin era cause us to be overly euphoric and blind us from the reality of what is CBH’s era? Granted that 3 FFs is no small feat, but arguably how many of those FFs should have been NCs?
What CBH has brought to UCLA is mental toughness and a committment to in-your-face suffocating defense that for the longest time seemed to be a eastcoast trademark. But since, CBH has come to Westwood, IMHO, he has not only instilled tough defense at UCLA, but has arguably influenced the Pac10 as a whole to be more defensive oriented. Pac10 bball has always been known as an athletic, uptempo, and offensively talented. Otherwise known as west coast bball. Defense hasn’t really been a west cost trait until CBH arrived. Now the Pac10, is different. That is with the exception of UCLA.
It seems to me at least, that the other Pac10 schools adopted CBH’s defensive philosophy without compromising or better yet, sacrificing the west coast offensive style of play. But the same can’t be said of CBH. Throughout the years what I’ve noticed is that the Pac10 schools that play BH defense do not have a problem scoring. CBH teams have had success almost entirely because of defense and the players that committed to defense. But how many times have we seen in big games, where UCLA goes on a 5-10 mins drought unable to score a point? How many times have we won games because the score was so incredibly low that we won simply on the mere fact we were able to will ourselves to 1 or 2 baskets more than the other team? And as for those baskets, were they within CBH’s offensive plays or was it the sheer tenacity of the likes of JF, AA, DC, RW to play to win and deviate from an anemic offense to create and find a way to score? I have always given CBH all the credit in the world for UCLA’s defensive success, but for the past 2 seasons, I’ve wondered for how much offensive success can be attributed to the players and not CBH.
And I know I might get shafted for this, but the question has to be asked, is what we see of CBH today, was it revealed to us during the 2nd and 3rd run of FFs? How come we couldn’t adjust to Florida knowing how we lost to them in the NC the year before? Why did we lose to Derrick Rose and CDR (not memphis team)? I know that not everyone would agree with me, but just as we are confident that CBH’s mindless handling of Ragobrick’s play, his rotations, and his recruiting failure is the responsible for the current state of our bball program, then shouldn’t we believe that those last 2 FFs should have, with absolute certainty, been our NCs? If that is indeed the premise, then wouldn’t CBH be responsible for blowing our chances at 2 NCs when all things indicate that it was ours to lose?
I dunno, but the past two seasons and especially last night’s game has got me wondering if this current state didn’t already show signs 3-4 seasons ago. That our desperation to move past the “dark era” allowed us to be blinded by CBH’s FF success and not see he failed miserably at the only success that hangs in Pauly… NC banners.
Sorry for what seems like rambling y’all and possibly incohesive thoughts. Wish I could write like you guys!
CBH's offense and defense
are part of the same philosophy. His defense is tough and predicated on people being able to defend their man and prevent him from getting easy baskets. It is not a gambling defense that is willing to give up some easy baskets in order to create turnovers. His offense – when functioning properly – is similarly methodical, trying to take care of the ball and work for high percentage shots. Low percentage shots and turnovers expose your defense.
As you will no doubt have read in your following of this site, CBH’s offenses are considered far more efficient statistically than one might think just by watching – check out KenPom.com for some of this. Our offense was actually very efficient last year (#3 on Ken Pom), factoring in the defenses we played against, but our defense (#44) was poor.
In a sport in which something like half of shots end up not going into the basket, and in an offense that runs the full 35 second shot clock, it isn’t at all surprising from a statistical standpoint that we might go stretches of several minutes without scoring, particularly over the course of a whole season. It only turns into 10, 12 point runs by our opponents if we give up a basket every time on the defensive end…
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
I see what you're saying
but I honestly believe that bball is a game of runs. And just as it is a physical game, it is also mental. If a team takes 10-12 mins (forgot which game that was) to score a point, then that effects your drive on defense. Offense and defense feed off each other. The energy on defense wears down sooner or later if you find that your defense is in vain cause you can’t score.
Efficiency stats may be high, but that doesn’t translate into how easy those shots came. It’s one thing to me methodical, it’s another thing to find scoring difficult. Honestly, I’m not sure if it’s so much being methodical as it is that UCLA just has a much harder time than opposing teams when it comes to scoring. Not to mention, methodical every single time ultimately becomes predictable.
Efficiency stats for one game don't say that
For a whole year, and for multiple years, they do. If teams routinely made “difficult” shots over “easy” shots, then those distinctions would be reversed. Furthermore, what’s easy for one team isn’t necessarily easy for another, so a high efficiency over a long period of time is logically a team that is getting shots that they can make. Don’t mistake taking shots late in the shot clock with taking difficult shots.
well
methodical every single time ultimately becomes predictable
depends what you mean by methodical.
If a guy is left with the ball with 0.5 on the shot clock, it is entirely predictable that he is going to shoot. The point of a methodical offense isn’t to run the clock down for the sake of it, but to work for high percentage shots. If you find yourself with a wide open shot 5 seconds into the shot clock and don’t expect there is much of a chance of getting a more open look in the next 30, it’s reasonable to take it. From a game theoretic perspective, if you have a mediocre opportunity early in the shot clock, you can refuse it, work for a better shot and settle for a mediocre shot later in the shot clock crashing the glass – and even that is better than a turnover or offensive foul.
Peyton Manning is also predictable in the way he consistently chooses not to throw the ball into double coverage, or force passes when he might be better served throwing it away. Consistently doing what you think gives you the best chance to win tends to be a good strategy.
Other teams have their own way of trying to get high percentage shots – e.g. playing full court defense pressure and trying to steal the ball is one way of getting easy buckets offensively, if you can do it right. Sometimes that means giving up baskets at the other end. There is a reason UW games are much higher scoring than ours. There isn’t one right way to play, nor is it easy to say “let’s keep CBH’s defense and play a different offense” because of how the two are interrelated. At the end of the day, a team that scores more points per possession than their opponents do will probably do quite well.
CBH’s overall offensive and defensive efficiency have made the team successful.
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 5:29 PM PST up reply actions
You're not alone
I don’t think its Denial per se but more along the lines of…..Who the hell in their right mind could complain about a coach who was racking up 30+ wins and taking us to 3 consecutive FF’s?
I agree like others that CBH is simply “Stubborn” and being “Flexible” is not in CBH’s dictionary IMO. CBH is similar to Bo Ryan and Tom Izzo. Ryan is stubborn just like CBH and rarely deviates from his philosophies. This works for Ryan because he stocks his roster with 4 year players that he develops throughout their career. Ryan works for a fanbase that doesn’t have the tradition or expectations that UCLA has so his 20 something wins a year and an appearance in the tourney is celebrated at Wisconsin. Ryan is one of the better coaches in the country IMO but the expectations at Wisconsin v UCLA are worlds apart.
On the other hand, you have Izzo who is a defense first coach who has adapted his philosophies based on the strengths of his players. Izzo’s teams played like a football team during the Cleaves/Mo Pete/Hudson era while his current team with Lucas/Morgan/etc. play a bit more up tempo since they’re a bit undersized and their strength is their speed. Izzo preaches physical play just like CBH. He is famous for putting a lid on the basket and having his players literally fight for the rebound during practices.
UCLA has had too much success and too much tradition to be satisfied with Ryan’s accomplishments. CBH needs to learn to be more flexible like Izzo but based on what I’ve seen to date, I’m not banking on it. I was really expecting to see a more up tempo offense when KL came in. We had DC/RW/JS/LRMAM which is a very quick lineup 1 through 4. With KL’s outlet passes, I thought CBH would finally open up his offense but it never materialized. If CBH does not learn/change, I don’t see things getting any better in the future. CBH has earned a ton of goodwill with me but he is burning through it very quickly right now.
when KL came in
we finally had a genuine post player capable of being a real asset in CBH’s offensive system. When KL came in you could expect fast break points from defensive rebounds – which we got – and also more touches for our center in our offense, which we also got. Why attempt to force quick shots when you can throw the ball in to KL and let him work his man or draw the double-team and open it up for other people?
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
Playing quicker does not equal quick shots
Read muir’s post below. RW was a 1 playing the 2 and LRMAM was a 3 playing the 4. Playing a methodical offense negates their advantage (speed) and only highlights the mismatch (size) vs opposing teams. We had speed all over the lineup yet instead of taking advantage of it by dictating tempo and looking for easy buckets, CBH would have our guys initiate our offense. Just imagine what DC would have done in a system like Roy was running with Lawson or the 40 Minutes of Hell that Mike Anderson runs at Mizzou. Instead of making teams deal with DC’s speed for 40 minutes, we only saw spurts under CBH’s system. I’m not saying we switch an entire offense for a single player. I’m using DC as an example of what I believed that years teams strength were and it was never utilized. Come to think of it, I don’t even know if CBH has a fastbreak offense or if he does, whether it would be effective at all.
Also, IMO we could have gotten a lot more out of KL. There were numerous games I watched where the offense did not flow through him so your argument of not playing quicker at the expense of KL doesn’t make sense to me. I doubt a Carmelo or Durant would have accomplished what they did during their brief careers if they played under CBH. You think CBH would have been able to stomach the FR mistakes or give them the freedom to showcase their talents? I don’t.
guess I am confused about your timeline
You said you were expecting us to go higher tempo with KL coming in. I expected us to run our offense in a way that utilized his skill set. Both of us were probably frustrated. I hadn’t expected RW to be the 2 guard entering the season, and IIRC the original plan had Luc playing the 3 and PAA playing the 4, but that didn’t work out,
I absolutely agree we should have got more out of KL; I think that would have involved making him the focal point of the offense earlier in the season than we did.
I think we are also missing each other on what it means to play ‘quicker’ vs ‘methodical’. Playing methodically doesn’t mean playing ‘slowly’. CBH’s offense works better with quicker players because (e.g.) quicker shooters (e.g. AA vs ND) can use their speed to get to their spots and take open shots off the screens that have been set for them; more athletic bigs (e.g. LRMAM, PAA) can set screens more effectively against quick opponents than slow bigs can, and can more easily take the slip pass from the point guard; quicker point guards can go through the gaps that are created and distribute; etc. Right now we are seeing what CBH’s offense looks like when you have slow shooters in ND and MR, lack of speed of penetration from point guards, etc.
Playing with a slower big in KL who had outside shooting ability, we rearranged some of the basic offense to allow him to take the three, rather than slipping to the basket. Probably should have done more of that with ND this season – if we had a point guard who needed to be guarded coming off the pick.
Maybe I am missing the point about what you all envision being the ideal offense being run by these other teams, and how that would have been the best way to exploit our talent.
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
Ben's team have been in the bottom half of the ncaa in pace per KenPoms stats
in every season save one he has coached at UCLA. So, even when he has quick players, he doesn’t like to play a quick game, and prefers to slow down the offense if a break with a numbers advantage is not available. We saw this all the time with JF or DC holding the ball watching the shot clock go down when ucla had a lead, even if there were 10 or 12 minutes left in the game
by silverlakebruin on Feb 21, 2010 5:19 PM PST up reply actions
right
IIRC, Ken Pom’s tempo is basically an adjusted measure of possessions per game. We tend not to take shots so early in the shot clock, so we tend to have a low tempo by his measure; and our defensive style has tended to force our opponents to slow down their offense, which also reduces the number of possessions we get per game.
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 5:40 PM PST up reply actions
I hope this shows up
just did some comparisons of our stats versus NCAA champions that year. Obviously the best of all worlds is to run a higher paced efficient system, which some teams can do, but it does show you really should be in the top 5 in offensive efficiency if you expect to win an ncaa title. It also points out that 2008 was our best shot at a title based on how we performed relative to peers. That defensive assignment against Memphis still drives me crazy…
2009 Off effeciency Tempo/Pace Def Effeciency
Champion 1 8 16
UCLA 3 155 44
2008
Champion 2 136 1
UCLA 7 217 3
2007
Champion 1 167 12
UCLA 23 266 2
2006
Champion 2 114 5
UCLA 28 300 3
2005
Champion 1 8 5
UCLA 69 58 55
by silverlakebruin on Feb 21, 2010 5:52 PM PST up reply actions
At some point
we will need to stop bringing up those FFs and begin focusing on the state of the program in the present and future. That point in time has already come for me.
By my count, this is the 6th time this year alone that Howland has hit some sort of historic low point for this program. Add the UW embarrassment to Portland, Fullerton, Miss St., and SUC (twice). He will hit another historic low in about 2 weeks when he completes just the 3rd losing season on record. That will be 7, SEVEN, historic lows in one season. Unacceptable.
I haven’t expected much out of this bunch since the Concordia game, where if it were not for Abdul-Hamid’s clutch shot at the buzzer, there would be EIGHT historic lows this year. What I do expect, and what every Bruin fan should expect, is pride, hustle, energy, and focus EVERY TIME we play the game, and I have seen less of that this year than I have any other year, including the Lavin years. Unacceptable.
This team has not improved one bit since Day 1. Also Unacceptable.
So while most everone is willing to keep giving Howland the benefit of the doubt because of those FFs, I am 100% focused on where this program is now and where it is headed. And quite frankly, I am not liking it.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
didn't mean to beat a dead horse
but I brought up the FF in reference to how everyone has been saying that CBH has been burning through his politcal goodwill because of the FFs. I guess my argument was, if we all saw that his last 2 FFs were complete failures on his part, then wouldn’t his goodwill have been burned out since last season? Shouldn’t they have been indicators that CBH needed to adjust like yesterday since he wasted great talent that should already given UCLA at least 1 more banner if not 2? I am grateful to CBH, but a free pass last year should have been the last. This is UCLA. We reasonably know what year should have been ours and what was not (first NC run was great, but Florida was animal we weren’t ready for). If I was to take the FFs into consideration, then this would be 4 seasons consecutively, UCLA has either underachieved or has been stale.
But it would be absurd to take the FFs into account
It’s just delusional to say that reaching the Final Four is failure, let alone a complete failure.
by SuperBruinMan on Feb 21, 2010 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
they are all three successful years
but he did ruin his opportunity at a NC with his lack of defensive adjustments during the Memphis game.
by silverlakebruin on Feb 21, 2010 5:21 PM PST up reply actions
I hate to say it
but the only silver lining last night, in a sick, ironic way, was listening to Bilas and Coach Knight call out Drago, our lack of effort on both ends (but D especially) and CBH. At times they were more disappointed and derisive than some of us – and that’s saying something. As an aside – those guys are truly in a different league compared to FSN (excluding Donnie Mac) – as has been pointed out. Anyway, I don’t know if anything will ever get through to CBH, but maybe having some of the feelings delineated here expressed out loud on national TV will create at least a little traction. Probably just wishful thinking, but hopefully between that and the post-game meeting the sh— finally hit the fan and this team will find it within themselves to start cleaning it up.
as was said last night
a couple of classless comments Knight made undermined his effectiveness as an analyst. I like his Xs and Os talk and dislike his self-references. And as was (or should have been) commented last night, if we have to listen to talk about what ‘he would have done’ in a situation, one of the other analysts should make some references to the things Knight did that other coaches would not have done, and which got him fired.
Bilas I always like. He is intelligent, understands what it is like to be part of an elite college basketball program, and is willing to take unusual but thoughtful stances (like “if the problem with one-and-done is kids not going to class, that is a college presidents problem, not an NBA problem”)
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
Totally agree
I meant to point out I am not a huge fan of his and found a lot of Knight’s comments painful to listen to, as evidently did Bilas and the other guy. His “fat little guys” schtick got old even before the words left his mouth – even if he does have a point. Anyway, missed the thread last night and having to catch up here – my apologies.
by Nocal Bruin on Feb 21, 2010 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
no apology necessary
apologies if I sounded like I was expecting an apology!
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
[as was said last night = ‘this isn’t my own original thought’; not ‘pay attention, fool’… :-) ]
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
I like to look at our situation realistically
The bottom line to have a good season is to have good players and good coaching. I am not trying to defend Coach Howland. Yes I think he should yank ND when he is not hitting, and he is playing more than his share. Yes he should play more underclassmen. However, we have a very poor shooting and passing team. Quite a few players are over-rated. Even with outstanding coaching, we can’t win too many games with aqverage players. I strongly believe the kids are trying, including ND ( N, excuse me for saying this), but our skill level is just not up to par. As one of the commentator said, we recruit players to produce, not just to try. The kids are human just like you and me. They have the right to get frustrated, angry and upset. I would get mad if the kids are A students but only get C’s, but our team, as a whole, is a genuine C rated team. I am eager to see how Coach Howland handles the next year team. Let’s wait and see.
Tommy....great post.
I think you raised some really valid points. This is a two-part post…first CBH and then our inept offense.
I love CBH and realize the impact he has had on our program. He came in after Lavin and energized the program. He brought a toughness and an attitude back to the program, and did it by recruiting local guys who understand the tradition and history of UCLA basketball. Farmar, Shipp, Afflalo, Mata, Collison……….all local warriors who took pride in being a Bruin. Then he added true Warriors in Mbah and Aboya, guys with “tough as nails” attitudes. None of those guys were ever given a “silver spoon” in life, and when they came to UCLA they understood CBH and what he stood for and what he demanded. CBH didn’t have to babysit, and he didn’t have to plead for effort. Those guys all knew what it was going to take and committed to that. They were, along with CBH and his great staff, responsible for the turnaround and everything that happened. We don’t have those types of players now (Roll is a warrior and will always be….he has just been put in a tough spot) and it is showing in our play and our utter lack of commitment to the principle’s of Ben Ball.
My biggest problem is that CBH got all of us to buy into it. He got the players to buy into it and he got us, the fans, to buy into it. The problem with all of it is that now we are all so bought into it, when we don’t see somebody like Dragovich put forth the effort that countless others have, we refuse to accept it. The real problem is that since we all bought into the system and philosophy, we can’t fathom the thought that CBH is allowing a player to blatantly wreck and ruin what has taken years of blood, sweat, and tears to build. The players and fans bought in. We drank the kool-aid, and we liked it alot. We believe in CBH and his system. We see how it can be successful…….but the big question is………….WHY AREN’T THE PLAYERS WHO ARE NOT ADHERING TO THE SYSTEM STILL ALLOWED TO PLAY AND WEAR THE UNIFORM??? That is what is all comes down to. CBH built it, but he needs to maintain it by holding players accountable. I am sure that most of us would understand that. If RN gives a shit effort, bench his ass. If Drag gives a crappy effort, bury him on the bench. Send a message. That is the frustration, cause the message being sent isn’t the right one…..and we had figured that CBH would never stand for it, and for some reason he is. It is pretty confusing. If you would have told me a few years ago that CBH would allow players to walk on defense, be out of position, be lazy, not demand intensity the entire game……….I would have laughed at you. Flat out laughed at you.
Lastly, as I have stated before, the offensive questions that Tommy raises are also very valid. There are different ways to score. Halfcourt offense, fastbreak offense, offense off of defense. Those are the three main ways teams create offense. Within those are OB (out-of-bounds) plays, perimeter shooting, inside game, pressing, etc.
Our halfcourt offense sucks. We never look to take people of the bounce, and usually our offense is 4 guys passing around the perimeter looking to pass it into RN, or looking to get MR off of a series of screens. That is it. When people play zone against us, we even have a harder time because we lack shooters or penetrators. That is a bad combo to lack.
We have no fastbreak offense. Never have. We’ll run when we have numbers, but never push hard when the numbers are even. We don’t have a fastbreak offense. Next time you see Duke or Kansas, watch the way they run their break. It is their primary offense. Only when they exhaust all options on the fastbreak do they set up into their secondary (halfcourt) offense. By doing that, they give themselves more opportunities to score.
Lastly, we don’t create offense off of our defense. CBH’s philosophy is to stay in front of the ball and play good position defense…….and that is fine, as long as you can play good halfcourt offense and have shooters, penetrators, bangers….which we do not. When CBH has the guys to play man-man, he’ll create offense off of defense by having players double team off of hedges, and using various opportunities to double-team players with the ball. This team can’t do that. By playing the zone, which I totally agree with because of our lack of athletes, it has created a problem with our offense. The only way we can score is by being good in our halfcourt sets, and when we aren’t, it looks really bad….like last night.
So there you go. We are what we are. We can’t control the types of players we have right now, but CBH can control the players playing time and their effort. We can’t control if we miss shots and can’t penetrate right now, but we can control who is shooting and who is in the game. It’s time for CBH to demand the effort that our past greats in his era demonstrated on a nightly basis. I gotta believe they are just as sick about this as we are.
by muircoach on Feb 21, 2010 1:17 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
As usual muir
Your post brings up a whole set of points, that are worth further discussing in a separate fanpost.
so I guess you don't buy
that the point of playing offense is to score as many points as possible on a per-possession basis? 2007, 2008 and even 2009 we apparently did more offensively than the likes of Duke.
I absolutely respect your thought-out and detailed opinions, and it accords with what most of us think when watching what appears to be a relatively uncreative offense. But in terms of actually putting points on the board in an efficient manner, analysis suggests that CBH’s offensive system is pretty decent. Do you have any thoughts on that?
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
I should add
that the offensive style potentially makes it harder to recruit elite offensive talents, who don’t want to see their per-game scoring/assist averages pushed downwards by our offensive approach, so there is potentially some damage done that doesn’t get factored into any of the ‘reality-based’ arguments about point production.
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
I think I feel somewhere in between
bb I am with you that CBH’s offensive system has proven to be efficient (numbers support that contention). However, his offense was efficient with proven recruits. I think what muir might be getting at is there are room for flexibility and adjustments on offense (just like there was room for change on defense with trying out zone defense this season).
There have been times this year when we it seemed like we need to push the tempo a bit this season after getting defensive rebounds and TOs to change the rhythm of the game. Don McLean made that observation during the Stanford game at Pauley. I think there are room for adjustments on offense, especially with the kind of dynamic passing talent we have in Honeycutt.
I think there's definitely some truth to that
and part of the issue is the manner in which we ‘secure’ defensive rebounds, often with multiple players on our team going for the same ball (and also that TH ends up having to do a lot of the rebounding, when he is typically the only guy I would want to pass the ball to to initiate the break…).
Also, the staple of his offensive system – the high pick and roll – has been a disaster because RN is not good at (or inclined towards) setting the pick, and our guards are terrible as using it. It was literally eye-opening to me against UW when someone set an effective pick for MR (MR!) at the top of the key, he used it and hit a high percentage mid-range jumper. It was like a blast from the past. I know that it is a sample size of 1, but it really made me think, how is it possible that Mike Roll can do that but I don’t remember seeing it from ML or JA all season??
I have a hard time working out whether JA/ML just seem very bad because we were spoiled by JF/DC at that position, or whether they are objectively very bad at being point guards this year (caveated with JA being less than 100% healthy and ML playing out of position).
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
Isn't the real proof in the pudding
how many NCAA champs the last 10 years were scoring in the top 10 in points per possession? If there were a lot, its probably meaningful to get to the title game. If there aren’t, it probably doesn’t really matter.
Ultimately, its not about having good seasons, its about winning titles at UCLA>
by silverlakebruin on Feb 21, 2010 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
The last 6 years
2009: UNC – 1 (UCLA – 3)
2008: Kansas – 2 (UCLA – 7)
2007: Florida – 1 (UCLA – 23)
2006: Florida – 2 (UCLA – 28)
2005: UNC – 1
2004: UConn – 4
Defensive Efficiency
2009: UNC – 16 (UCLA – 44)
2008: Kansas – 1 (UCLA – 3)
2007: Florida – 12 (UCLA – 2)
2006: Florida – 5 (UCLA – 3)
2005: UNC – 5
2004: UConn – 5
Also interesting, UCLA’s best wins each year
2009: UW – 40 Off, 9 Def
2008: WSU – 26 Off, 7 Def; Stan – 25 Off, 15 Def
2007: Kansas – 17 Off, 1 Def; Tex A&M – 6 Off, 10 Def
2006: Memphis – 29 Off, 6 Def; LSU – 50 Off, 4 Def; Gonzaga – 1 Off, 178 Def
by SuperBruinMan on Feb 21, 2010 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
And Pace
2009: UNC – 8 (UCLA – 155)
2008: Kansas – 136 (UCLA – 217)
2007: Florida – 167 (UCLA – 266)
2006: Florida – 114 (UCLA – 300)
2005: UNC – 8 (exact same pace as 2009, incidentally)
2004: UConn – 86
All numbers adjusted from KenPom, adjusted for competition.
by SuperBruinMan on Feb 21, 2010 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
Offensive Efficiency and Basketball Statistics
While I love statistics, I do say that basketball statistics are not very reliable indicators in a sport as fluid and dynamic as basketball – and they can be downright misleading if looked at in a vacuum. Stat’s are great for baseball for instance, since every in-game scenario can be modeled by numbers. But that isn’t true for basketball where all 10 players on a court are dynamically involved.
I think what a lot of muircoach means too is that we have too slow of a tempo. We always look to the half-court offense first, rather than the break that Kansas or Duke does as their first option.
I think that looking at offensive efficiency in a vacuum can be a bit misleading in terms of on-court success. Offensive efficiency is rated by the number of points scored per 100 possessions. However, if we are letting ourselves play fewer possessions per game, we are scoring fewer points per game.
Now where can playing a slow tempo be dangerous and even harmful to success?
When you play such low possession games, the scores are going to be low, meaning that scoring margins are going to be low. A really efficient game at a very slow pace may end 55-50. As we saw in our first Final Four run, a 55-50 game wasn’t nearly as close as the score indicates.
However, this requires a few important things: that great tough defense is played every single second, and that turnovers are at a minimum, and that luck is on your side.
First point is obvious – if you have a single lapse on defense, and the guy you are guarding makes a 3 point shot, the 5 point margin that seemed unsurmountable is now just one basket away form being tied.
Second point is also important – each turnover impacts a slow game far more than a fast game. If you play 100 possessions in a game, 10 turnovers will not be as painful as if you play 50 possessions in game.
Third point cannot be controlled – and that is luck. If your opponent simply has one guy who’s hitting 3’s from Jerry West range all day, no matter how much defense you are playing on him, you’re going to feel much more pain per 3 he makes.
Unfortunately, right now, we aren’t playing hard defense and we aren’t playing turnover-free.
Saying that we are offensively efficient during our great years is true. In 2008, we were #7 in the nation. Last year, we were #3. We were #23 and #28 in 2007 and 2006 respectively.
However, our tempo/pace rank (adjusted) since Howland since 2006:
300 266 217 155 245
In other words, other than 2009, we’ve always been in the bottom half of the nation in terms of tempo/pace.
Ever notice how teams like Kansas, Duke, and especially UNC, have major blowouts over opponents they should blowout? And often, we have game’s where teams we should beat hang around too close for comfort?
Well it’s those 3 points above I illustrated above:
If we are having a poor defensive game, or having numerous defensive lapses, team’s will hang around a lot closer than we like, because our scoring margin is low.
If we are having a poor ball-handling game, we tend to get behind and never recover because we’ve wasted precious possessions. This has been particularly obvious when playing teams that play defenses that stifle us, such as whenver we played John Belein’s teams.
And luck… well, look at when we played that game @ WSU that one year where we were leading by double figures going into the last few minutes. Then WSU went off a torrid 3-point streak, and we nearly lost to them.
So how is this opposite from having a fast pace? Well a fast pace means that defensive lapses aren’t going to hurt as much (a 3-pointer made during a defensive lapse is less likely to hurt if you have 50% more possessions to make up that lapse, for example). A turnover isn’t going to be as big of a percentage of a loss. And luck is less likely to factor in since you have more opportunities per game to overcome bad luck.
Looking at Kenpom and all the championship teams + runner up’s since 2004 (which Kenpom has recorded), here are the paces (adjusted rank):
2004
Winner: UConn (86)
Runner Up: Georgia Tech (64)
2005
Winner: UNC (8)
Runner Up: Illinois (251)
2006
Winner: Florida (114)
Runner Up: UCLA (300)
2007
Winner: Florida (167)
Runner Up: Ohio State (218)
2008
Winner: Kansas (136)
Runner Up: Memphish (87)
2009
Winner: UNC (8)
Runner Up: Michigan State (126)
2010 isn’t over yet, but the paces of the best teams are Kansas (96), Texas (10), Kentucky (54), Syracuse (48), Duke (167) – in other words, all in the top half of the nation in pace/tempo.
A look at the championship/tempo, the only time a slower team won was Kansas against Memphis, and we all know that Memphis lost cause free throws started to matter (a bad free throw shooting team, such as ours, makes playing slow a even bigger pain).
Also, we look at Tom Izzo’s teams and say… wait, doesn’t he play slow?
Sure, since 2004:
243 142 212 317 247 126 190
Notice something interesting there? His 2005 Final Four run, and his run last year… were also his two fastest years, 142 and 126. His other years, when he wasn’t as good, were all played much slower.
Does that mean Tom Izzo adjusts his team to his team’s strengths? Not sure, as I don’t follow Michigan State closely, but it’s very interesting to note.
Note that none of this means just play fast, with no defense or offense. All those team’s above were great efficiency wise on offense and defense. However, it’s very worth nothing that being offensively efficient might not matter that much if we’re playing too slow.
vs baseball numbers
Your point is undoubtedly correct wrt individual statistics – a player with a high OBP very predictably translates into more runs for his team, where a guy with high FG% (e.g. Lorenzo Mata(-Real) led the conference one year) does not. I’m not sure the same case is so obvious for team statistics – if you tend to score more points per possession than you give up, then you will tend to win, in the same way as in baseball if you tend to score more runs than you give, you will tend to win.
I think an interesting point that you raise is that in a game with a higher number of possessions, you win more of the games that you are ‘supposed’ to win. That seems right – if you expect that your expected value for a possession is slightly higher for you than for your opponent, all else equal you want more possessions. I think that would be a stronger argument against CBH if there was a sense that we regularly get upset in close games against teams we should beat, and hang tough against teams that are better than us. That doesn’t seem to have been the case against Florida x2 and Memphis (an admittedly small sample, but the one that probably means most to people).
I think the other place where the tempo/style discussion isn’t easily captured by current stats is how things go when you match up against a team with distinctly different tempo – e.g. how does a team handle playing Tony Bennet’s version of Wazzu on a Thursday and uptempo Udub on a Saturday. In all three big losses, I got the impression we were being sped up more than we wanted to be, and were unable to force our opponents to play at our speed. Not sure how that interaction works or if people have any other thoughts on it.
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
one further thing on the last point
there has also been some talk about how the Pac-10 has adapted to CBH and incorporated some of his defensive intensity. I wonder whether CBH’s East Coast style basketball has enabled us to dominate against West Coast teams, but that we were not such a surprise to teams like Florida who had probably dealt with similar styles of teams already in conference play…
by britishbruin on Feb 21, 2010 6:03 PM PST up reply actions
Well
One could argue that we should have won against Memphis (and, after seeing LRMAM, KL, RW, and DC do just fine at the next level, I’m now inclined to agree).
Florida we did lose 2x, but as BlueReign wrote, by playing slow, any advantage in speed we had was lost and instead highlighted their advantage in size
As far as your point about being sped up against teams, I was planning on writing more about it, but I don’t have a lot of time right now to go in depth
But from a cursory glance, I get the feeling that teams that typically play slow have a harder time playing fast, while team’s that play fast, have a easier time transitioning to a slower game, and that slower teams get their size disadvantages revealed more easily. But I’ll have to look more into it
+1
We don’t have the players to fit the system for sure. CBH’s conservative style of play reduces fast break opportunities.
Sorry, been gone all day after my original post
which seems to have sparked some great conversation. BB made some very valid points. My opinion (and that is all it really is) is that points per possession is obviously an important stat, but it becomes even more important in a conservative system, such as UCLA’s. Nick wrote a great post about pace, and that is my point exactly. I think to be successful, and the stats back it up, is that college basketball is a guard-oriented game. Any big men with any type of skill are so valuable in the NBA that they don’t last in the college game. They go to the league quickly. Therefore, it is guard-oriented and most teams with good guards really push the pace. I make alot of my references to Duke because they do such a good job of playing intense man-man defense, but also finding the balance to run. Now, they always don’t have the great athletes, but they push the pace and get great shots off their break for their perimeter shooters. Kansas and UNC also are fantastic at pushing pace. In any normal year we play defense as well or better than almost anyone. However, our conservative offense and our reluctance to push the pace consistently has hurt us. I don’t have alot of time to go over it because of things I have to do, but I really believe Nick and Nestor hit it on the head in response to my post. When I have more time, I’ll try to expand.
i'm gonna stick up for RN here
i understand he has maybe let his emotions get to him a bit and said the wrong things or some of you think he quit on plays at times. but try to say he’s another DG or the next rago seems kind of out of bounds to me. has he been a liability on D ? yes, but who on this team hasn’t been really. he’s a freshman, he’s an undersized power forward and he’s playing the 5 most times, plus he’s been hurt. give him a break. if he’s not rotating over it might be due to the fact that he prolly cant see out of his eye.
has he shown an inability to pass out from the post and force a shot? ya. but why would he pass it back out ? to have drago, roll, or lee jack up another clanker.
it’s been a tough season, everyone has been lousy. but to try to peg RN as a future problem is wrong if you ask me, hes been one of the bright spots this season
Across The Face
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
