Lavin vs Howland....Closer than you think!
by BigDBruin on Mar 20, 2010 11:33 AM PDT
Email
PrintQuick analogy for the Howland contingency:
Lavin-7yrs win pct .688
Howland-7yrs win pct .697
Lavin-6 tourney appearances: 4 sweet 16, 1 elite 8
Howland-5 tourney appearances: 3 final 4's,1 runner up
Lavin-8 players in NBA
Howland-8 players in NBA
Lavin-lost B.Davis,J.McCoy,J.Moiso,J.Rush early
Howland-lost Love,Farmar,Westbrook,Holliday early
Lavin-Lost Top 03' recruit E. Burns(five Star) grades.
Howland-Lost 08 recruit D. Gordon(4 star) transfer.
Lavin-Recruited underachieving PG (C. Bozeman)
Howland-Recruited underachieving PG (J. Anderson)
Just the facts folks, do with it what you may.
I would argue that the Pac 10 was much stronger during Lavin's tenure and although neither coach won a championship, Howland's run of 3 consecutive final 4's was remarkable to say the least. I would also argue that the losses of Love and Holliday as Frosh were much more damaging to Howland, but not as surprising as Davis, Moiso and McCoy leaving as Soph. Everyone new Love was 1 and done, and should have known that Holliday was 50/50 at best.
I just don't get the fascination with Howland! Real success is measured by what you accomplish with what you have. So, I don't consider the 3 final 4's a success. When you consider what the core players on those teams have been able to "quickly" accomplish in the NBA the Bruins should have won at least 1 National Championship, maybe 2!
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.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
are you kidding?
worst fanpost ever.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
by gbruin on Mar 20, 2010 11:39 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Use stats as a drunk uses a lightpost
For support, not illumination.
Now, I will use this as a child uses a clown. For comedy.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 20, 2010 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 8 recs
I am leaning towards banning
for idiocy.
by Nestor on Mar 20, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
But there is so much epic fail in this post, N
We can all use a little humorous reading, after all.
formerly bruinhoo
by Patroclus on Mar 20, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good point
Just like “Bill and Teds.” I will let you all handle this because I am not going to waste dealing with this clown with facts.
by Nestor on Mar 20, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
But N!
This post perfectly supports your never-ending crusade to fire CBH.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 20, 2010 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Why?
Everyone seems to think this post is idiotic, got it. But humor me and explain to me why. Is it because of the three final fours and reaching the championship game? The winning percentages are very close, tourney appearances (+1 Lavin), # of Championships won (zero for both). What am I missing? Please educate the idiot.
Simple
Ben Howland is a very good basketball coach who did a wonderful job rebuilding the UCLA program.
Steve Lavin is not a “coach.” I am not going to explain to you why Lavin is not a basketball “coach.” If you want to find out why Lavin was nothing but a sleazy, scumbag and a conman posing as a basketball “coach” stealing millions from UCLA, use the search function on the top right of this blog.
If you still then continue to argue that there is not much difference between Lavin and Howland, you will be banned for being a moron. Will not give you another warning. Thanks.
Did you watch the games? At all?
Unless you’re literally seven years old — ten at the most — this post is unbelievable.
One big difference
When you look at the winning percentages,. Lavin inherited a team with J.R. Henderson, Toby Bailey, Jelani McCoy, Charles O Bannon and Kris Joohnson, They were 23-8 the year befoire and were the defending Pac-10 champions.
In contrast, Howland inherited a team that had gone 10-19 the year before. If you discount the first year when Lavin profited from Harrick’s players, and Howland/s first year when he had to make do with Lavin’s players the percentages change significantly.. If you do that Howlands’ is .716 and Lavin is at ,633.
Although why I am taking the time to try and argue facts on this point is beyond me….
Yep
I was going to respond similarly, but really did not want to waste time on it. Remember that Lavin inherited a turn-key championship contender; that makes the first couple of years easier, as well as allowing recruiting continuity playing off the success of the prior regime (ie. Harrick and 1995). That, and (my belief, at least) with the exception of the current season, the Pac-10 has been stronger top to bottom during Howland’s tenure than it was under Lavin.
formerly bruinhoo
On the "tougher pac 10" argument
I don’t buy it. Howland’s arrival on the scene, and the defensive coaches that followed, showed how vulnerable Lute Olson’s system was even with all its talent (which did not taper off till the very end). The 2007-08 Pac 10 had seven tourney teams and was one of the toughest ever top to bottom. ASU, WSU, USC, and UW were definitively inferior programs during the Lavin era than they became with their new coaches. Same Cal program. Stanford was a top-10 team in 2007-08. OSU was at least a little better, and Oregon was the same (good one out of every four years).
Also keep in mind
Those losses in the first season of Howland’s that bogged down his statistics closer to Lavin’s are a direct result of Howland cleaning up after your beloved Lavin’s ineptitude.
Ugh
Ok, just going to take one point. Bozeman was underachieving as a direct result of being coached by Lavin. JA is far worse than Bozeman ever was.
Anyway, the major epic fail of this thread is the talent Lavin started with compared with the crap CBH had to work after Lavin was canned.
Lavin's talent
A selection of the players that Lavin had available to him:
1996-97 – year 1: Bailey, Dollar, Charles O’Bannon, JR Henderson, McCoy.
2001-02 – penultimate year: Matt Barnes, Kapono and Gadzuric, along with Cummings and Hines and the frosh Bozeman and Dijon Thompson.
Throw in Baron Davis, Earl Watson, Jerome Moiso, JaRon Rush, Ray Young in addition to the above, and Lavin had plenty of talent to work with during his time, but did very little in terms of developing and using that talent.
formerly bruinhoo
Lavin's greatest sin...
was not developing these players to their potential. I always thought Matt Barnes had some of the craziest talent of any freshman coming to UCLA during that time. I kept waiting for him to become one of the dominant players in college, and he just never got better. But he has managed to stay in the NBA for 7 or 8 years now, though, by being surrounded by pro coaches and pro talent and getting better each year. I really feel badly for those kids whose basketball careers stagnated in Westwood.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
I'll take the ban, sit back and hope you are right!
First I’m not defending the firing of Lavin, just pointing out the ‘FACT" that through the first 7yrs as a UCLA head coach their winning percentages, tourney appearances, number of championships won are just about even. You can hack on Lavins motives and personality all you want, it doesn’t change the records.
As far as the teams inherited, c’mon!!! BH inherited TJ Cummings, T Ariza, R. Hollins, D Thompson and C. Bozeman, you can’t be serious Michael6636! TOUGHER PAC 10…Zona won the title in 97 and played for the championship in 01, Stanford went to the final 4 in 98! Both Stanford and Arizona were elite programs at the time with Wash, Ore and Cal being very competitive. Bluebland, I do watch the games and I have seen BH get out coached when the talent is anywhere close to even, I’ve seen numerous recruiting blunders and i’ve seen some of the best offensive talent we’ve had in years wasted due to a coaches ego and stubborness. I have also seen one of the most confusing coaching decisions in my 30 years of playing,coaching and watching basketball…The Dragovic experience was comical…No defense, no hustle, no consience….No problem.
Nestor if this is my last post, I thank you for the opportunity. I will continue to follow faithfully with no remorse. I love all Bruin fans!!! Go Bruins….Peace!
It's also a FACT that you're cherry picking stats
By not at all acknowledging that the two coaches inherited different situations. Stats are meaningless without context, which you have so “conveniently” not provided. While your boy inherited a team two years removed from a frickin national championship and a defending Pac 10 champion with 16 conference wins, Howland inherited a team two years removed from a glorious Steve 16 and 6th place conference finish (11 wins) and that won a grand total of 10 games the year before. It’s pretty clear why you’re ignoring this: It invalidates your entire argument.
While there’s no doubt that there are legitimate concerns about what Howland is going to do from this point forward to right this ship, his body of work ALREADY outshines the Lizard’s. So there’s no need to sit back and hope anyone else is right, because the verdict is in and you’re already wrong. Howland has already proven himself a better coach than Lavin. The question is whether he will make the adjustments necessary to bring this program back to the standards that he (and sure as hell not Lavin) set a few years back.
Nice Try Steve
You’re never going to get a coaching job again.
He doesn't want one
If he got one, he would be exposed as the fraud he is, and would no longer be able to pretend that he was forced out by some departmental conspiracy rather than his lack of coaching ability.
Don't even post absurd garbage like this
You’re making a case that no matter who coaches the Bruins; they don’t win. You sound like a Trogan
This is absurd but one example of coaching CBH v. Lavin
Lavin’s idea to deal with a losing steak and adversty, was to start Sean Farnham, a nice guy but with no talent as his “good luck charm.”
This year CBH had lost his four top fives (Gordon, JK, RN, BL), had lost 3 out of his last 4 and was facing a tough trapping ORST defense without a real point guard. Did he start Spencer Soo for good luck? No he came up with a unique and very good game plan to have MR act as point to pass over the trap. UCLA had a great game and won despite the adversity.
No need to REHASH the Lavin "malaise " & REBASH Lavin the pretender here
But it just seems to me that all of a sudden, because someone compared Howland’s records with that mother f*****, people quickly brought up something good they now think Howland did this past year.
Human psychology is just amazing, really.
Lavin’s appointment was a monumental mistake from the beginning, even before he stepped onto the court to coach his very first game. I wish his Pauley records could be deleted like computer files. One click of the button, and it’s gone. Then you clean out the desktop to make it permanent even.
For Howland, nothing needs to be said anymore. Whatever needs to be said is said already, for the trillionth time if not more. Next year’s performance will tell us who he really is, what he really is capable of etc. It’s the first step.
Agreed
The ugly, listless, discombobulated, 20 + turnover-producing, 55% free throw-shooting, matador-defense playing, off-balance 3-pointer chucking, embarrassing blowout-losing 2009-2010 UCLA mens basketball team looked a lot like those Steve Lavin-coached teams that I would like to forget. Next year, Howland has to prove that this season was an aberration, kinda like Haley’s comet (something we should only have to see once in our lifetimes).
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
Stop revising history
Lavin is the black plague of UCLA’s basketball history.
I saw this on BRO
so lame.
"We should have a banner up there: the only team to make the tournament without a coach." -- Baron Davis, remembering his "coach" at UCLA
by inhowlandwetrust on Mar 22, 2010 9:27 AM PDT reply actions
Wait a minute...
what does the D stand for in BigDBruin? If it is what I think it is, that could really help explain this post.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Big D reminds me of a favorite axiom of mine.
It takes a fool to argue with one.
Another one is: Figures never lie but liars often figure.
Your numbers prove nothing other than a complete lack of basketball knowledge. That in itself lends credence to Kapono’s theory that you are a Trojan.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
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.
