The Need For Effective Leadership (Entails Being More Than A Good Teacher) In UCLA Hoops
by Nestor on Apr 8, 2010 4:00 AM PDT
in Basketball
Email
Print
I have been thinking a lot about leadership recently in the context of Ben Howland. I know many here have not been happy with us because how harsh we have been towards Coach Howland during various inflection points of this past season. Yet while watching the tourney in last few weeks (during which I was sucked in by the efforts of Michigan State Spartans and Butler Bulldogs) I have been coming to a realization just how much I appreciated what Coach Howland brought to UCLA when he arrived in Westwood. The games coached up by Tom Izzo and Bran Stevens were reminder of how much I fell in love with the concept of Ben Ball which came into total fruition during those halcyon days of initialed warriors.
It's funny. During this past season number of times the old complaints about the style and pace of Ben Howland's offense hit a fever pitch. Of course the outside critics have taken their fair share of potshots at it over the years. Yet it was amusing to see the same critics (coming externally and internally courtesy of people like the trolls who would drive by during the game threads of recent years) woop it up over Butler's tenacious D, even though it was pretty much the same stuff we saw out of AA led Ben Ball warriors.
Watching the tourney was a vivid reminder at least for yours truly of how badly I want Ben Ball back at UCLA and how much I want to go back to the days of suffocating defense that often jump starts fast break offense, hard-nosed rebounding, tenacious efforts on both ends of the court, a smart and efficient offense dictated by a heady pg who optimizes shot selection over razzle-dazzle . Well how do we go back to those days? Well let me share some big picture thoughts on the kind of vision and leadership we are going to need from Ben Howland.
Howland is a great teacher of the game. He knows more about this game than all of us here. The question here though is whether he is a great coach which requires him to be a very good leader. That is the tricky part and it entails knowing more than just about the basketball game. It requires strategic management skills. I think for Howland to show effective leadership he will need to do the following in next two years:
- Re-establish the foundation and principles of Ben Ball based on hard-nosed defense and fundamentals
- Bring in the right mix of players who are truly committed to that foundation based on his defensive mindset
- Effectively communicate with his team reinforcing principles with measures of reasonable expectations and accountability, along with positive reinforcement & reward for performance
- Fairness: apply the standard of expectations in a consistent manner
For starter, I strongly believe Coach Howland needs to re-establish and profess total commitment to re-establishing the foundation of defensive minded tenacity and efficient offense that put the Ben Ball stamp in Howland wood few years ago. This means Coach Howland not only need to commit himself to that principle in all aspects of his game management (including the kind of personnel he puts on the floor) but also having a staff in place that totally commits to that vision and are skilled enough to bring in student-athletes who would genuinely aspire to live up that vision.
Sure Howland still needs to bring in elite athletes (AA and JF - the two cornerstones of Howland's first warrior class - were MickyDers) but also bring in the right mix of players who will embrace that defensive mindset during practices and game days, but just not through some soundbites to make them sound appealing to agents and NBA scouts. This also goes back to putting together team that will be most conducive to developing the right chemistry. You can sense when a team has chemistry. I thought Howland's first two Final-4 teams had that chemistry. The third one was wonderful to watch and enjoy but in retrospect something might have been missing (that is perhaps worthy of a whole separate post for some other day)
Second, Howland needs to figure out as much as practicable the roles he envisions from his student-athletes and convey to them how he thinks they would be able to accomplish those objectives wearing those four letters in Westwood. This means not only smart and sincere communication resulting in a "true meeting of the minds" but it also entails constant follow-ups and a developing a relationship of trust that enhances those follow-ups. It is not clear to us whether that has been the case. There are reasons to be concern about the attrition rate in our program and we will have to see how Howland goes about clearly defining the roles for all the key recruits in his program who are brought in with a valuable scholarship earmarked for UCLA basketball.
Third, it all goes back to communication. Not only Howland needs to help our athletes map out their envisioned roles he needs (through the help of an able and strategically minded staff) to set up reasonable standard of expectations when it comes for each and every one of his players in the program. A student-athlete should know exactly what is expected of him both on and off the court as member of John Wooden's basketball program. If an athlete is not giving the requisite effort and dedication needed to meet those expectations, then he should be held accountable, which also should be balanced out with constructive feedback helping him to get back on track.
Fourth, building on the concept of communication and expectations, Howland needs to be consistent with regards to treatment of all the student athletes in this team. I think this is where the critical breakdown took place in this program in last two years through what appeared to be special treatment for couple of athletes on the court. I am not going to bother naming them at this point. No need to rehash those discussions in detail. I think what is important now is for Howland to find a way to reset the program in a way so that every member of his team is treated in the same fair manner. It means an upperclassmen should be treated the same way as an underclassmen, in case he is not living up to the principles that initially formed the foundation of Ben Ball at UCLA.
Lastly, there will always be room for flexibility. In fact a great leader should always give him reasonable room to adjust, adapt and recalibrate without compromising the basic principles and visions of his team.
I believe Howland is probably the best teacher we have had on basketball court since departure of John Wooden. I don't have any question in my mind that when it comes to teaching the game he is in the top-10 if not the top-5 in this game. The question I have is whether he is a great leader. As the Caretaker of Coach Wooden's basketball program, we need Howland to be more than just a very good teacher of this game. We also need him to be very good leader who can take UCLA hoops where it belongs. A good leader would ensure not only he is learning from his mistakes (no one is perfect) but also doing everything he can to surround himself with the right lieutenants who will not only effectively help execute his overall vision but also offer constructive feedback (or even pushback) when necessary.
I strongly believe Howland cares about this program and his legacy at UCLA as much as anyone else (and yeah I don't let the DePaul talk bother me even though I don't necessarily agree with number of takes here on BN). It doesn't matter to me that Howland might have contemplate going somewhere else. What matters to me is I think Howland is more consumed about getting our program on track than anyone else around the Bruin Nation. The question is whether he is going to reflect on what has gone wrong in recent years, realize some of the missteps, and then strategically adapt to fix those issues to bring back the magic he captured few years ago. Again this will require Howland to be more than just a tough (and a very good) teacher of the game. We are going to need him to be a very good leader exhibiting smart management skills.
Part of me truly believes that he is capable of being that good leader and bringing back that magic. Yet right now I have no idea how this story is going to unfold in next few weeks, months and years. That is why the other part of me is anxious.
GO BRUINS.
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Many excellent points above
and the teaser on the third final four team is interesting.
In one aspect, I think proper application of one principle might make another redundant:
if he recruits the right players, there will be less need to ‘flexible’.
This year he was forced to be flexible because he didn’t have the players to play his preferred style of defense, particularly after Gordon left.
He has only demonstrated offensive flexibility in one year, as far as I can see – the year where he somewhat adjusted the offense to try to fit Kevin Love into the mix as a prominent player.
It is possible that once you start demonstrating too much flexibility, players start coming to UCLA hoping that you will be flexible to play the way you want to play, rather than the way CBH is best equipped to coach and with the classic BenBall identity.
As someone said on another thread: players know what they’re getting from Duke. While it may put off some number of elite players, they have their identity, they recruit to it and have success. Same with Izzo at MSU; same with Boeheim at Syracuse. Those three programs have strong identities and you know what you are going to get. If they deviate from their identity for a season, there is no doubt what the identity is. I wouldn’t argue that CBH needs to be completely inflexible, but I think we can all see that the identity we had up through our first two final four runs seems to have disappeared.
Good Stuff
I’ve been critical of CBH’s offense. My displeasure doesn’t come from wanting to see a complete transformation but variation/wrinkles. I’m well aware of how efficient CBH’s offense is with the right players but till this day, I still believe that the 2008 team could have been more productive offensively instead of squeaking out victories when you look at the components on that squad.
I want CBH to fix this because he’s earned that right and I’m don’t want to go through the process of replacing him should it ever come to that. After Coach Wooden, we all know how that worked out. You pretty much hit all the points and we’ll see how this plays out.
I don't believe winning close games or "squeaking out victories" is a valid measure here
The beginning of that season was mostly trying to fit KL into our offense while trying to cover for him while he got up to speed defensively. Maybe there were some closer than expected games in the nonconference season, but adding a piece that has as diverse a skill set as KLove is going to bring some growing pains with it. Then we get into conference season where the conference was as deep and strong as it was in at least a decade if not longer. The fifth place team that year was the Harden-Pendergraph-Glasser ASU team. That ASU team would have run away with the conference this year. In that conference, in that year, any win was good enough for me and I certainly don’t hold close games (especially wins) against that year’s Bruins.
good points
though I think there is a legitimate question – when you look at what RW, DC and KL are doing in the NBA – as to how well CBH managed to use their talents in that season. I don’t really care about whether we blew people out in the non-conference, for the reasons you point out – but would it have been possible to turn that team into more of an offensive juggernaut by the end of the season? Regardless of the deconstruction of our defensive performance against Memphis, I don’t see how any team could defend adequately against a center who demands a double team in the low post every time and has superb passing ability, when you have a deadeye 3-shooter in DC and a slashing athlete like RW on the perimeter and a cleanup man in LRMAM who will punish you on the boards if you don’t box him out. (not having MR available as another guy to hit open shots was a real pity)
I think if you were starting with that team and a blank slate and a mandate to win at all costs, you would try to make sure KL got a touch on nearly every offensive possession. It would have been a major departure from CBH’s M.O., and might not have been the best precedent to set (or gone down well with other players on the team), but I think it would have made us impossible to stop.
by britishbruin on Apr 8, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I understand the "look at the NBA" perspective
But let’s be honest, those guys have gotten better since they were here. We have to give them credit for that. The same work ethic that helped them be successful here is helping them succeed at the next level. Also remember one of the defenses that proved to be effective against us, and I’m not talking about zone. I’m talking about the Let-Luc-Take-Jumpshots defense. Use his defender to clog the middle and stay at home on everyone else. Luc’s option to put the ball on the floor is taken away if KLove is already occupying the middle. The Prince, much as I love the guy and appreciate what he brought to our team, still can’t consistently shoot from the midrange. The fact that opposing fours used to sag down means that the only way to implement the “Klove touches the ball on every possession” strategy is to pull him out to the perimeter, which doesn’t seem that bad since he has an outside shot and is a capable passer, but still negates his primary strength: rebounding. For that reason, I don’t see that strategy as “unstoppable”.
yeah, I'm on board with that
and a great point on 4s leaving Luc alone.
I wonder what you could do about that – have Luc and KL set screens for each other to try to get some single coverage for KL or create driving lanes for Luc? And/or have KL stretch the interior a bit with his own midrange game?
It also didn’t help that we didn’t get consistent production from the 3 either….
by britishbruin on Apr 8, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I was actually thinking about that as I was typing
I can’t remember seeing it. Would have been interesting to try out, but from what I remember, Luc was really only good for a couple of dribbles and he better be at the rim at that point or that possession is in a world of trouble. Pulling KLove out and putting Luc down low would have been great if Luc had back to the basket moves, but I didn’t see much of that either when he was here.
Offensive Should Change\ALter to Fit Personnel
I think great coaches do adapt to great talent. I agree that CBH should have used KL much more in the set offense. It seemed KL had to struggle for touches some times. You are right that for the KL team ideally:
you would try to make sure KL got a touch on nearly every offensive possession
I don’t think this would have compromised the defense first approach. CBH’s approach necessitates resting some on offense to go all out on D. That said working the ball into KL every set possession would have still allowed us to take time off the clock and would not have hurt the D IMO.
In CBH’s defense, there is a good statistic that our three shooting as a % of shots taken dropped that year because of KL and that helps prove we were different on offense. So to some extent CBH DID change the offense for KL. Maybe we are unfair to ask more of a team that was really good and whose players have improved in the NBA. (Remember RW was the defensive stopper first, offense almost an afterthought.)
I think you do RW a disservice
insofar as – if you left him free he would drive and dunk; he was our third scorer behind KL and DC, and actually had more assists on the season than DC at the same A/T ratio; even shot a higher 3% than JS, which I wouldn’t have thought if I hadn’t just looked it up. I wouldn’t call his offense an afterthought, even though he was the designated stopper once AA left.
Fair enough
RW did have the most memorable dunk in CBH’s time.
In my defense, he seemed to score in the open court more than the set offense if I recall correctly. The set offense is what we were discussing. And Shipp took almost three times as many three pointers. (I think all 3s are in the set offense.) Thus in the set offense he was not the third option but really the 4th. (I don’t remember Shipp scoring much in transition.)
I think the KLove led squad had plenty of chemistry
A good examples was the game against the standard at Pauley. The passing in that game was just brilliant and every player on the squad was enjoying themselves on the court. Although, winning by 20+ can do that to you.
"I can't believe I ate the whole thing" Homer Simpson
So many insightful, strategically viable points for Howland to ponder
But my concern is that short of some direct channels of communications with the guy, whom I was told would be exceedingly difficult to contact for various bureaucratic reasons, we can ruminate about the issues here at BN even after our face has turned blue into some deathly pale shades, an indication of a human being’s imminent expiration, Howland will still do what HE THINKS SHOULD BE DONE, not our objective, precise observations he and his staff, for some mysterious, unfathomable reasons, never understood an iota.
That’s why I said what I said previously. Just wait till the fall season comes and see what he does. What is the purpose of even putting together a doctoral thesis titled
" Steps to Rediscover The Ben Ball Valor " when we have no idea if the person that needs to know, assuming he didn’t know, might not want to know or even if he did, wouldn’t care ?
I love our program and hope Howland reawakened himself by the Butler performance.
Totally agree, but
I still don’t find it a waste of time to discuss a “doctoral thesis” on UCLA basketball, regardless if it falls on deaf ears of the person that matters most, Ben Howland. For me at least, as an alumni and married, I really can’t vent my frustrations and observations regarding UCLA bball or Bruin sports in general to the Mrs., because quite frankly, I think she’s pretty tired of it! If any of y’all are like me, your spouse(unless she is an alumni herself) has probably been worn out by your obsessive loyalty and committment to all things UCLA (God bless her). So, BN is my place of UCLA solace. I don’t think BN was ever meant to be a sounding board for coaches to reference to see what our opinions are. I think everything here posted on BN is for BN, and maybe, just maybe if what we discuss here is able to positively influence anything regarding UCLA, then that is awesome.
Nonetheless, you are totally on point that it’s up to Howland, and that how he starts off this fall will be telling if he’s the coach that we all hope that he’ll be. But I gotta be honest with y’all here, I’m a little worried that he’s not. As noted above by Nestor, Howland knows a lot more basketball then probably all of us combined. His X’s and O’s are pretty much the best in the nation. That being said, I’m pretty positive that the observations and analysis that we share here in BN, Howland already knows first hand. But the problem is, why didn’t he adjust when it was needed? If it’s obvious to us what needed to be done, either in the flow of the game or throughout the course of the season, then it was obvious to CBH. A prime example would be how BN saw the need to go to zone after the first 3 games, but Howland didn’t implement it until near mid season. The same can be said regarding his recruiting, staff, team management, rotation, etc. There’s a lot of instances over the last 3-4 seasons that I think we feel that CBH needed to adjust and be flexible, but he either ended up doing it late or not at all. I keep asking myself, why won’t Howland adjust when I know he knows he needs/has to? BH may love UCLA to death, but is it enough that he would put UCLA above his own stubborness?
I know that everyone here at BN is die hard UCLA. That we’re open and flexible to anything (within honorable reason) that promotes the integrity and success of UCLA, whether it be related to sports or otherwise. And we’d probably be the first to admit mistake if something ended up being beneficial to our beloved school that we may have not been amicable to initially. Ultimately, I feel we all want what’s best for UCLA. Let’s hope that BH feels the same way.
very powerful comments
on leadership. I don’t think anyone can argue with the content of what needs to be done in areas like communication, reaffirmation of the defensive identity, recruiting the right players, etc.
and whether or not these BN comments have any impact on Ucla coaching is, for me, much less important than having a forum to think through these issues…
Comments on Chemistry
I remember an image from the first final 4 team. After the loss JF and Ryan Hollins walked off the court arm in arm. That team had chemistry. I do think the David conquering the world reality of that team helps build chemistry.
I think the KL team did not have the same level of chemistry. I dont think it was bad but I thinkyour hint N was valid. (These guys also may have bonded with more time together). I do wonder if it was a hint of things to come with more entitled one and done types but I dont know. (The fact KL seems to have missed UCLA and talks so nicely about his experience may mean I am wrong).
I believe we have the watch the assumption that no team chemistry means poor leadership. We dont really know what goes on within the team. Anyone that has run a group knows there are times when you add someone it disrupts the group…in ways that were seemingly impossible to have forecasted before. So we all have to hope that the chemistry challenges the last 2 years are related to the inability of these guys to gel vs lack of leadership.
I have already commented that I thought Butler played just like I hope UCLA plays again. I am with you N, I now love to watch good Ben Ball defense.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Apr 8, 2010 10:44 AM PDT reply actions
I agree.
I also believe we need a true leader on and off the court for our Bruins. Like I’ve said in the past the rating system is over rated. We need players who are willing to sacrifice for team and for university over there own personal goals. CBH also needs to adapt to the new generation to have success. I liked your post Nestor, keep it up.
I do not aspire for UCLA to be MSU or Butler, ever.
Nor do I aspire for a return to CBH’s “efficient” Big East/Pitt offense that strangled great players like JF, AA, KL, RW and DC on offense. I believe we made it to three Final Fours despite CBH’s slowdown, squeeze the air out of the ball “offense.”
My dream is a return to the original basketball that put UCLA on the map forever and that destroyed “traditional,” half court, “power” basketball teams. Fast break, transition, run and gun teams with a full court, zone press that turned the game into a high-octane ballet.
That, of course, is not the only way to play basketball. Even Coach adjusted to his players’ talents over time, but it was the best it’s ever been at the college level.
I do not doubt CBH’s ability or dedication to UCLA, but he has yet to show his alleged flexibility, adaptibility to his players talents’ and/or a corresponding commitment to offensive scoring. He supposedly did it at Northern Arizona, but I have yet to see him do it in his 7 years here.
If the goal in DG hiring CBH was to live and die by slow-down, Big East, power basketball, then we have had our wish. Only right now we’re dying.
I hope and trust that CBH will see the light and copy Coach’s legacy more than Izzo or Stevens as good as they are. After all, this is UCLA, right?
GO BRUINS!
What do you call
“offensive scoring”? Ummm…is there any other kind? What do you mean by “commitment to offensive scoring”?
So you’re saying, because we’re UCLA, we should be running a fast break, zone press system, regardless of the coach? That makes no sense.
You’d rather see our team take lots of shots than make the majority of their shots through good selection. OK, no problem with that. Unfortunately, that’s not CBH’s system.
Do you remember the way UCLA played against LSU in CBH’s first Final Four? You call that slowdown? If it’s there, the guys will run. No point in running if you don’t have the numbers.
Ahh, what’s the point, guys like you just want their little run-n-gun show for your own enjoyment.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Apr 8, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think it's this
Offensive scoring:
v, 1. The act of putting up 100 points per game every night, even if it means giving up 110.
2. Scoring TD’s in the 4th quarter of a blowout on a play called by Cheat Carroll, it’s actually quite defenseless, but it sure does offend.
Seriously though, I love Ben Ball but I can see the merits of questioning the offensive production of some of our squads, esecpially the 2008 one. I thought the video someone posted of an interview w/ RW a few weeks ago was quite interesting. He was asked what it was like playing for CBH and he said that great defense was the priority. When asked how CBH coached them on offense, RW said, and I’m paraphrasing, “I guess he just assumed we knew how to score, since we were playing at UCLA”.
A lot of people take offense to the notion that CBH acts as a bottleneck wrt to some of our players’ ability to score, maybe the more realistic scenario is that defense just gets more coaching and practice time and team chemistry on the other end of the court doesn’t reach full potential as a result.
The thing is
you can teach someone to play good defense.
You can’t really teach a player to be a good shooter. You can teach form, technique, etc., but that’s it. The basketball pundits here can correct me if I’m wrong, but teaching offense means teaching how to run sets and plays, and recognizing when to shoot or drive to the basket. What else is there? You can teach post-up moves, etc., but the player can only use those in the right situation.
When people like you perpetrate this “CBH is a bottleneck” argument, it really does a disservice to him and is misleading.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
You can teach offense
There is much more to offense than just shooting.
Scoring is different than shooting. A great example is Reggie Miller. He was a great shooter the day he came to UCLA. He learned to be a great scorer by drawing fouls and going to the basket more by the time he left. He became a great scorer.
A more recent example, MR. MR was a great three shooter and that was it when he arrived. When he left he could drive to the basket AND led the team in assists. In many ways he was the perfect wing player on offense. Something that I did not see happen on his first day when I thought he was going to be a tall Brandon Lloyd. CBH deserves some credit for this.
Shooting can be learned as well. Magic Johnson was a terrible outside shooter when he came to the Lakers as a rookie because as he said “I didn’t need to shoot outside in college.” He became a good three point shooter through a lot of hard work and practice.
Obviously the greatest coach and player effort is not going to make a LMR into Michael Jordan. But it will be interesting to watch the “toolbox” TH develop. He has the work ethic. He needs to be more selfish and to look for his shot more. He needs to learn to take advantage of his matchups with his skills, size and speed. He can and should improve on the offensive end and it will be CBH job to make sure that happens.
For the record
I do not think CBH is an offensive bottleneck and I think comments like “CBH NEEDS TO OPEN UP THE OFFENSE” are a bit absurd.
I was merely pointing out the “opprotunity cost” of spending more time on one thing (defense) than on others. This is vastly different than actively “holding back” the offense, which I think most of us agree is not happening and is stupid to claim that it is.
I think if this season (and possibly last season)
Illustrated anything, it’s that not only is practice time important in implementing CBH’s man to man, it’s also that buy in has to occur early from everyone. This season’s team didn’t look like it ever bought in, and so you’re right that time spent teaching M2M with a bunch of kids that don’t believe in it is probably wasted. Now, we can point to recruiting as another potential pitfall, but that’s also an opportunity to preach buy in to the defensive system as well. And perhaps if CBH gets the feeling that a kid is going to have trouble committing himself to the defensive end, maybe that kid should not get an offer. I remember the interview with JF talking about what impressed him most about CBH’s pitch was that he talked about defense when he was recruiting him (which is somewhat confusing given his struggles with defense at the next level), but that’s still the mindset that we need. That’s why this season was potentially so damaging to CBH, because his whole reputation was built on defense, and yet his substitution pattern didn’t match that reputation.
Still good to teach M2M, Personnel was an issue, but agree on Drago
Even in a zone it is good to understand M2M defensive principles. It is a big help in zone. The biggest learning curve defensively in a zone is rebounding. This is because you have to “find” a man to box vs. M2M where you already have a man. But M2M principles are not wasted in zone and I don’t think it was wasted on these players.
I also think there was more than “buying in” for why we could not play M2M this year. It was personnel. Drago, JA, RN, and even MR were just not good M2M defenders. All had athletic limitations even if the effort was there. Look I like RN’s hustle on offense and the boards but it is hard to play center undersized let alone as a Freshman. He will be better off against 4s next year.
That said it was damaging when JA, Drago and RN took time off on defense and especially in Drago’s case did not pay a price (RN not starting and JA’s benching were punishments to those players.) Hopefully, JA and RN will remember and be shown the bench quickly next year if they don’t play defense hard.
Yeah, perhaps that's a bad choice of words
I was trying to illustrate that for this particular team, maybe more practice time on offense would have paid more dividends…THIS season. I think we can all agree that we learn more when we’re interested in the subject matter, and it appeared to me that this year’s team was much more interested in offense than learning the defensive philosophy. There are personnel issues as well as you pointed out, but even beyond that, one doesn’t necessarily have to be more athletically gifted than the opposition to play great defense, or at the very least defense that was better than what we played early in the season. I can understand if the focus and effort were there and guys were just getting beat. That’s fine. Frustrating. But fine. There were plenty of times though that I didn’t see either of those things, and to me that indicates a lack of interest on that end of the floor.
I don’t think CBH should abandon his principles, or stop teaching his bread and butter just because some guys on the team want to do something else. It’s not supposed to be all fun and games. Nevertheless, it’ll be interesting to see what happens next year if the lateral foot speed issues persist, and there’s a good chance they will. Will we try to go back to man? Will CBH throw in the towel earlier and get them ready to play zone if he sees it’s not working again? I honestly don’t know what he’s going to do. I can only hope for a positive result.
I'm confused
I’m completely on board that CBH defense comes first and foremost as the identity for UCLA basketball and that his players need to buy in and be committed to that philosophy. Hard nosed, suffocating defense creates transition offense, as proven in CBH’s 3 FFs.
But honestly, our defense has always won us some close and great games, but IIRC, there have been quite a few times that our teams were desperate for some offensive rhythm and production to absolutely no avail and ultimately cost us some important games. It’s absurd to think that players will play flawless defense and will always get transition baskets. Who’s to say that we don’t come across teams with great transition defense? Bottom line, you need to have good half court offensive sets as well as tough defense.
Not trying to be antagonistic or anything, but I get the feeling that a majority feel that as long as CBH gets players that buy into his defensive philosophy and UCLA returns to BenBall then everything is going to be fine again. Is everyone forgetting how anemic our offense was even during the FF runs? And I’m not saying that BH’s game is ugly or, that I’m advocating for a run n’ gun, but I’m looking at scoring with some sort of flow within the offense. Running sets that create easy baskets whether it be early or late in the shot clock. Although defense is an absolute must for us to return to, BH still needs to do major improvement on offense. At the end of the day, you still need to put points up on the scoreboard to win. Am I missing something?
Our offense just isn't as bad as you think it is
In terms of the number of points per possession, they have done a decent job (check out kenpom.com for our various offensive ranks over the years); and the efficient offense also feeds into the defense – bad shots and turnovers can lead to easy buckets the other way, so minimizing those has a double benefit.
Beat me to it, Pretty v. Effecient
(I was writing this when BB posted before me. )
You of course are right you have to have good offense in addition to good D. But defining “good” is tricky. Try a statistical approach and use offensive efficiency. Basically efficiency is points scored per possession.
In the three final four years our offense ranked 7,23, 28 in offense efficiency. We ranked 3,2 and 3 in defensive efficiency in those same years. More telling is the first year we slipped, 2009. We ranked 3 in offensive efficiency better than all the final four years but had our worst year in defensive efficiency ranking 44th. Last year we ranked 104 on offense and 138 on defense.
So why the offense may not have looked good, it was pretty good those years. And the defense was phenomenal Oh overall efficiency we were ranked: 3,6, and 3 in the final four years.
There are flaws but this does point to the fact that while our offense was not pretty it did work. On the other hand, the teams that one the national title all had better offenses, so we need some work to get to the final level. Of course this is way too statistical but it does tend to prove the point that CBH offense is not strangled.
as an aside
it’s interesting how many slow teams were successful this year – Duke, WVU, Butler, MSU were all really slow tempo teams, a la the typical BenBall pace…
+1
Some guys on here think that there are magical UCLA Pixies that entitle us to be on top using whatever strategy we feel like. Unfortunately, that’s the furthest thing from reality. History is nice, and we honor it, but some people are blinded by it. I’ve got my own little pet name for these winning-be-damned-offense-at-all-costs people that I mutter every time I see another one of these copy-paste offense whines but it’s probably not appropriate.
Oh, and speaking of run-n-gun shows
I think the people who are really itching for one might want to check out St. John’s. I heard they hired a guy who likes the uptempo basketball.
by Tydides on Apr 8, 2010 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think CBH has been a bottleneck on offense,
especially to the team with KL, DC and RW, all of whom are tremendous NBA pros right now. Was that 2008? I think so. Did he do a great job teaching them defense and fundamentals and getting ready for the pros? Absolutely.
Did he reign in their offensive skills, slow down the offense and take the air out of the ball? Absolutely. Is he capable of teaching or employing a better, quicker, more up-tempo offense? I thought so when he was hired, but after 7 years of the same, I’m not sure. I hope he proves me wrong because, personally, I think and have always thought he is a fantastic UCLA guy and has the highest integrity.
My ideal style of play is the “original” UCLA teams of 1964 and 1965. That was basketball at its best and purest as our little, quick teams destroyed much bigger, power teams with zeal. It was a long time ago. It is history. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t work today with the right personnel. Actually, the coach who most employs a more up-tempo game and pushes the ball very well, and still has a good defense, is Mike Montgomery. [Just an example, people. I am not suggesting we hire MM!]
If you read my whole post you would have seen I acknowledged other systems, the need to adapt to your players as Coach did over the years and in the end, I just said I want CBH to be more Coach then Izzo, not only Coach and no Izzo. To me that means more balanced, not just trying to win on defense, and as RW said, to paraphrase, let the offense take care of itself. I think CBH can do better.
GO BRUINS!
Teaching Offense versus playing offense basketball
CBH is a defensive first coach but that does not mean he ignores offense. Nestor’s point is that 2 out of the 4 final four teams this year were similar in approach. CBH’s approach is valid and he is good at it. 3 consecutive final fours is a very good accomplishment.
Also CBH’s former players succeeding in the pros on offense does not mean he “strangled them” in college. Dean Smith was an incredible teacher, was he a bad coach because he held Michael Jordan’s scoring down in college? Or did he do Michael a great service by teaching him the game? I am sure Michael would have averaged more points playing for a Paul Westhead or even a Steve Lavin but would that have that led to a championship or helped Michael? IMO no. I think all reasonable people can agree that Dean Smith did not “strangle” Michael Jordan’s offense development although he certianly did “hurt” his scoring in college.
And DC’s success similarly is in part attributed to CBH. He improved while he was here. DC’s job now is very different in the offense in that he needs to push it constantly and there is a huge difference in the shot clock. The pros is a quicker game making him play different.
But DC learning to shoot inside and outside came in college, Don’t forget he shot 40% FG and 32% from three his freshman year. He also learned to play under time pressure in college especially his senior year by having the ball in his hands at the end of the shot clock. It helped DC learn how to make a quick move against the clock. I guess he could have magically matured and improved with age but I think his “instant” OFFENSIVE success in the NBA is due in part to CBH.
If you want to say you don’t think Ben Ball is “pretty,” fine. It is like the people who are bored by a no-hitter or a pitchers duel in baseball . Where is the scoring they say. You are entitled to your opinion but don’t say CBH strangles players.
A better criticism is he should have strangled Drago.
Very thoughtful analysis.
I agree that MSU and Butler played “classic” Ben Ball and in their way, when played efficiently, and executed properly can be very effective and yes, even exciting. But that is not how Coach coached because his teams were fantastic offensively and he did not play slowdown, ball control style, very occasionally to his detriment.
The reason Butler and MSU play “classic” Ben Ball is because they don’t have the talent UCLA normally has. The ball control, spread the half-court, slow down equalizes their lesser talent with teams with more athleticism and firepower.
Can you imagine any of Coach’s teams playing Ben Ball? It just wasn’t in his genes. Bobby Knight, yes. Al McGuire, yes. You get the idea.
I think with the talent we normally get we should have better offense. We should maximize our scoring with more up tempo while shutting them down “Ben Ball” style on defense. Would that not be the best of both worlds?
I hope so.
GO BRUINS!
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that
You can’t play Ben Ball defense with a fast break offense. Not enough time to get back and get set on defense. Therein lies the issue. Of course it would be the best of both worlds…but name a team that’s actually like that…I’m waiting…still waiting…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Good post. N
It is funny that when you were upset with Coach, your comments made sense, and now you tone down and comment on Coach and your comments also make good sense. I wish Coach Howland have the same qualities you have. We will have a good team after all. If I am a good pg, I would be crazy if I don’t come to UCLA. I am expecting a pleasant surprise soon.
FYI - Point of BruinsNation vocabulary
“Coach” means Coach John Wooden
and we are never upset with him.
by britishbruin on Apr 8, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Back to Ben Ball
Its been almost a week since Butler’s storied run came to an end and finally someone (Nestor) has put his finger on why I was so excited about it. Cutting right to the point, Butler did more to restore faith in Ben Howland and his style of bb than any number of articles written or arguments won. We and the entire nation saw what could be done when it is done right and, as N also points out, the entire squad has bought into it. Soon it will be signing time and there are probably many talented hs players wondering what’s up at UCLA. Many of us here have speculated that alot of today’s top hs athletes just don’t want to play Ben’s style of ball. Well I’ll bet Butler’s success and the excitement it generated on so many levels will have gone a long way to convincing many that that’s where its at. I think CBH’s job got a whole lot easier thanks to Butler.
Hi Tommybruin
My spouse only enjoys the food chanel. She went into another room whenever Bruins games are on. Then when I blogged on BN, she looked over my shoulders, wondering if I was writing to a lady or something. So you’re right. We needed to vent, come hell or high water.
But I really, really hope Butler reawakened Howland & company. That guy is young enough to be his son in law as we speak. Look how he guided his team in the tournament.
You should have my wife!
My wife is an alumni of Kansas State. During the BB season not only do I watch UCLA basketball But I get a healthy dose of KSU BB. We have a joke around the house when K State is on the tube. The phone is kept open so my wife can call the coach and give him hell or advice during the game.
Watching KSU for 3 seasons has given me insight into team chemistry. KSU had great team chemistry that substituted for 5 star talent. Frank Marting has molded a group of players in the Ben Ball mode. Us against them. He recruits people and gets them to play his way.
The fact that the Wild Cats met up with Butler put a damper on their run to the final four. When you have five guys playing as a team then games get won. I think the last few years we have had players more interested in their own PT, stats and glory and less interest in playing as a team and winning games.
When we came out in pre-season and dropped games to the likes of CSFU we should have known what we were in for the rest of the season. As the season progress, as hard as CBH worked to make a team of these egomaniacs, he just couldn’t get them to buy in. I think we should blame Ben less and come down hard on the players who ruined the Bruin’s season this year.
Oh no, then I would miss those cooking LOL
Nevertheless, whatever happened happened already, high definition style and in a forced feed way ( meaning it didn’t have to be that way but ……… ).
It’s Howland’s program, his call, his contract inked by his legal representative and the AD Guerrero. So we’ll see how things turn out this fall. I shall vent, of course, like Tommybruin said, whenever things went awry, choked my conscience, challenged my inherent right to fredom of expression.
But at the end of the day, I do really, really, really hope Howland awakens before some folks with immensely deep pockets become disenchanted and speak up. We know their clouts.
re: your last point
I hear that there are three of those people, of which this is known:
1) they are alumni
2) they are wealthy
3) they are also influential
by britishbruin on Apr 8, 2010 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeap, Britishbruins
You bet. When they talk, everyone listens. After all, $$$$$$ is the key. If you and I can contribute the way David Geffen and other Westside financiers, the Bel Aire sets do, you don’t think Guerrero wouldn’t pass the message onto Howland within hours ?
This is how I feel in a nutshell!
#
# Effectively communicate with his team reinforcing principles with measures of reasonable expectations and accountability, along with positive reinforcement & reward for performance
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Inside UCLA vs Bruinsnation
I’ve been following both sites for awhile (even though this is my first comment and only signed up for an account back in Feb). I do tend to agree with some of Gold’s readers in that the moderators for this site are a bit hypocritical when “patrolling” for ‘negative" comments to the commentary and yet these same moderators have no issue with bashing UCLA (e.g. Howland’s coaching this year). As a 98 grad, this is pretty disappointing. For a true fan experience, they should be allowed to post whatever opinions come to mind…especially if they are alumni and not the casual bandwagon ucla fan.
What is your actual point?
There is an amount of censorship for people who are abusive to moderators; and unsubstantiated opinions tend to get short shrift. I have no understanding of what you mean by ‘patrolling’ for ‘negative’ comments and how that relates to moderators expressing negative opinions about CBH’s coaching this year. I don’t see any hypocrisy in this.
Also, BruinsNation is a community. If you want to be part of the community, you have to play by the community rules. If you don’t think you are getting the “true fan experience”, make up your own site or find another that suits your tastes. The moderators here put in a lot of hard work for no tangible reward as a public service and are not beholden to you to allow people to post ‘whatever opinions come to mind’.
I wouldn’t go to a public square and denounce the dress code of the local golf club that doesn’t allow me the true enjoyment of golfing in flip-flops; I don’t understand why any UCLA fan would choose to go on Gold’s site and post abuse about the moderators of BruinsNation. If you don’t want to play by a community’s rules, then that community is not for you; but the community’s rules are its own business. Seeing people using words like “Nazi” on Gold’s site is an embarrassment, and I am surprised that they are willing for that to go on. Anyone on the internet can access the BruinsNation site; anyone on the internet is given the benefit of the initial doubt about their worthiness to post items. This really isn’t an exclusive club, but if you don’t like the way it is run, why would you want to join it?
Especially since
1. Unlike Gold, the guys here run their site for free;
2. Unlike Gold, they started this site themselves FOR themselves;
3. The high standards for posts and comments make this a great site in terms of information and frankly make it a pleasure to read, unlike those awful message boards.
Sorry, but just as in real life, you can’t just go around saying stupid things on this site, particularly if they are unsubstantiated, without repercussions.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Apr 8, 2010 7:51 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
right
I am just curious as to whether some people just misunderstand the ‘rules’. It can be confusing/daunting/aggravating [delete as applicable] when you first arrive. People may also misunderstand the premise – this is not an ‘official’ UCLA site, but people seem to have the mistaken impression that because they are a ‘UCLA fan’, BruinsNation somehow belongs to them as a birthright and has to take their opinion into account.
That's what I thought when I joined
smaller community then, but still passionate :)
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Winning Cures All Ills and it all starts with recruiting.
1) I agree that CBH’s style starts with defense, and we need to have players who can play it. Man to man, or zone, our team lacked the quickness to defend last season.
2) It would be great to build a team comprised of all hard workers, but you need two or three players who are outstanding on offense. Getting players who will buy into CBH’s rigorous program and also meet our academic standards, be more than one and done and still be elite offensive players is a tall order, which we have had difficulty meeting of late.
3) The best motivators are ones who challenge their charges, but also keep the game fun. CBH challenges players, but he may not be able to keep the game fun. Winning cures all ills, because its much easier to have a fun atmosphere when the team is winning. I really do not know CBH’s relationship with his players, but I have a sense that his style is fairly imperious, and can make the game a grind, especially when the team is losing. That being said, great coaches run the personality gamut from Dean Smith, to Bob Knight, to Bob Huggins, to Lute Olson, to Larry Brown, to Coach K. (There was only one John Wooden.) All top coaches can win, regardless of style, when they have the players.
4) The coach’s number one motivational tool is playing time. Taking a player out who is not doing what he is supposed to do, giving correctional advice, and then adjusting playing time based on the response on the floor is vital, both for the development of that player, and the others who are watching and seeing what earns playing time. Sticking with Drago rain or shine did not fit that mold. That needs to be fixed. CBH must have seen the missed shots, slow rotations, and a general lack of fire on endless hours of game film. It is hard to imagine why CBH did not use playing time to correct or replace Drago. The tedious story of Drago remains an enigma.
5. Flexibility would be desirable, but better players, playing harder and with intelligence, with the team winning, could be achieved without flexibility. Flexibility would make it more likely that the team would win.
CBH brought professionalism back to the program. With the exception of last year, the team has played hard, demonstrated teamwork, and played with intelligence. It was fun to watch every game. With a few good players, I think we can be back. I am excited to see what TL, ZJones, and Josh Smith will add. I am hopeful there will be one or two more really good additions. CBH is not perfect, but he’s a great coach.
P.S. If we don’t have (ZJones) or recruit a point guard who can defend and penetrate, we’ll be in for another long season.
The answer is starting CBH right in the face...
The question is, what happened. CBH took a program he restored, and ran it into the ground this year.
The answer is staring him in the face — Coach John Wooden.
CBH should get in his car and drive to Coach Wooden’s house. He should ask him for those note cards upon which Coach Wooden wrote his practices. CBH should run hard practices like Coach Wooden, teaching them everything from how to put on their shoes and socks, to how to run he offense and defense.
Chemistry comes from being prepared. The Championship teams didn’t necessarily like each other off the court, but they sure knew how to play together once they got on it. Practice and preparation. Play like a team. These are things the coach teaches you. Even in down years, Coach put together fine teams.
Yes, the talent level is down. That’s CBH’s fault. However, even our crummy teams send players to the NBA. C’mon Howland, you’ve got to do better. Go back and watch some of the KTLA tapes, Dick Enberg announcing. That’s Bruins basketball. See how a real team runs an offense and plays defense. Ask Coach for some help running practice. Or go talk to one of the hundred or so alums who played for Coach and ask them.
The failure this year is on Coach Howland. It’s his program. It’s his assistants. It’s his players. Fix it Coach Howland. Bring in the right kids, an teach them how to play. But most important, teach them to be good teammates, good students, and good men. I think you’ve got it in you Ben, but we didn’t see it this year.
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.
