Latest National Nonsense Reviewing UCLA Basketball
Preseason last year we were overrated based on our name and CBH's success the previous four years. This year, preseason we are being consistently underrated by those not in the PAC 10. The latest is ESPN in a blog post yesterday:
UCLA fans aren't accustomed, historically or under Ben Howland, to rebuilding seasons. Given last season's disaster, that's what 2010-11 is going to be.
Let's delve into what he considers the problems (emphasis mine throughout).
Defensively, Howland's typically stout teams gave way to a No. 138-ranked adjusted defensive efficiency last season; the notoriously man-to-man-prone Howland actually resorted to zone for a while there. The bad news: Most of the players from last season's lackluster effort return in 2010-11. The good news? They'll be one year older and -- theoretically, anyway -- one year smarter on the defensive end.
Wrong. most of the players are not back. Take the top five in minutes played last year. The leader in minutes Michael Roll and third in minutes Ragovic are not back. Guess what, they are 2 of the three reasons we had to play zone last year. MR was a great effort guy but could not cover M2M. Ragovic was ah never mind.
The third reason, Jeremie Anderson (fifth in minutes played), is going to have to fight for his position. If he does not up his game on the defensive side, Matt Carlino may even replace him as the backup PG. And by early accounts from people who actually pay attention to the Bruins, Jones looks like a beast on D. Thus either Anderson improves or Jones will step in and I don't think this will be a concern.
The next two in minutes played from last year, Malcolm Lee and Tyler Honeycutt are both good defenders. While it was high school, freshman Josh Smith was a defensive force and Lamb was his team's defensive stopper. Next year will be much improved on D.
Offense after the jump.
Offensively, the Bruins weren't much better, scoring 1.058 adjusted points per possession, good for No. 108 in Division I. There was some good news here, too. The Bruins shot pretty well, posting a team effective field goal percentage of 52.6, the 39th-best mark in the country. Unfortunately, that bit of skill was drowned out by sloppy play everywhere else: UCLA was among the worst teams in the country on the offensive glass (No. 270, to be exact), rarely got to the free throw line (No. 202 in free throw rate) and turned the ball over far too much (21.6 percent of their possessions, good for No. 240 in the country). It doesn't matter how well you shoot when you're that bad at everything else.
Let's take the three problems one at time.
1. Rebounding.
We started five people at Center, all were undersized or out of position. Included in that group was a kid playing on one ankle (Brandon Lane) and Ragovic who all too often was content to sit at the 3 point line and bomb away on offense and on defense was all to ready to go to the three point line on offense. While everyone wants to make Josh Smith the key to next year, the reality is Smith does not even need to score to improve the team, if he plays D and rebounds the team will be much better. Again the returning forwards Reeves Nelson and Tyler Honeycutt were good rebounders.
2. "Rarely got to the free throw line."
Again, this guy did not even do basic research. Our leaders in FTs attempted, Reeves Nelson and Malcolm Lee return. Michael Roll, great shooter that he was, who led the team in minutes rarely got fouled and was sixth on the team in FTs attempted despite playing almost twice as many minutes as Reeves the leader. Moreover, our two leaders in shot attempts, Roll and Ragovic were bad at getting to the FT line since they were in Roll's case a jump shooter and in Ragovic's case, a guy smart teams backed off and begged to shoot outside. Moving ML to Roll's position while hurting our 3 point shooting, will help us get more FTs as ML slashing to the basket style will create even more fouls. Next year the team does not look like a jump shooting team and will draw many more fouls just by the style change.
The bigger concern is can we make those. Ragovic and Roll were the leaders in FT % but again if you are not drawing fouls how much does that help?
3. "turned the ball over far too much"
Yes, point guard U played without a PG last year and it showed. Lee was out of position and Anderson was hurting and had motivational issues. Lee is playing 2 this year and Anderson is not being given the job as he was last year. If the twwl blogger said that he did not think Jones\Carlino\Anderson would be the answer I could understand but again CBH is addressing this problem and won't be caught with one PG as he was when Holiday left. Also, CBH has an awesome record generally on PGs.
All in all, I am cautiously optimistic about next year and would not care about these articles except for the effect on potential recruits. Hopefully, they will listen to the NBA guys praise what people like DC and RW learned at UCLA more than some random twwl blogger.
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.
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Lee injuries
During the games, I have a clear view of our bench. From what I saw, Lee was a hurting Bruin—unable to even stand up at some points in some games.
So I would add to your excellent analysis, Lee’s injured state last year.
by peggysue69 on Aug 10, 2010 4:53 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
On Lee, was it cramping and conditioning
or other issues that was hurting him so much? Obviously everyone saw him come out of three games from cramps but I am curious about the other times.
Cramps
Big time cramping. Once it was so bad the team physician walked over because Malcolm could not stand up.
Why the cramps, I don’t know.
by peggysue69 on Aug 10, 2010 6:45 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Not intending to
bring up the horror of one of our departed players, and I’m glad you didn’t see a need to rehash the issue for the umpteenth time…but I loved this line:
…all too often was content to sit at the 3 point line and bomb away on offense and on defense was all too ready to go to the three point line on offense.Great writing.
In the immortal words of the pin I got while an undergrad: Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Nailed it.
I agree with your points, but would rank our problems last year as:
1. Warriors who can play D that is up to snuff with CBH’s standards
2. Lack of competent PG
3. Lack of true (or even faux) Center
4. Drago-shoot-every-two-times-i-touch-the-ball-vic
This following season, we’ve potentially addressed all of these issues.
Nailed it.
I agree with all of your points. If I were to rank our issues from last season, it would be:’
1. Warriors who can play D that is up to snuff with CBH’s standards
2. Lack of competent PG
3. Lack of true (or even faux) Center
4. Drago-shoot-every-two-times-i-touch-the-ball-vic
This following season, we’ve potentially addressed all of these issues.
Sorry... I did a preview of my post, didn't like the original and revised it...
but somehow ended up posting both anyway.
Which is better?
At first, I liked the second one more than the first but over time I concluded they are both by and large equally correct.
by peggysue69 on Aug 10, 2010 10:49 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't know.
This could be one of those very difficult graduate school exam questions. A or B? hmm…
Nice post!
It’s obvious this guy doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.
If Smith, Lamb and Jones can play
we are going to be a good team. Honeycutt and Nelson will be a year better, and many of the more experienced players on other teams have graduated. Honeycutt is the real deal. He is a tremendously quick leaper and has a nice shot. He sees the floor very well, and understands the game. Reeves is a beast in the low post, very hard to defend. He draws fouls and is very tough. His defense needs work, but its hard to defend in a zone without getting lost. If we can play man, he may improve. I am not sold on Lane, as many here are but If Lane improves, we can be even better. I don’t think there is any chance that we will start the season as unprepared as we were last year. I just have the feeling that the pieces are going to fall into place and that we will be competitive in the Pac10.
Lane
As a person Lane is one of my favorites in that you have to admire his hustle and, as it turns out his sacrifice, considering the nagging ankle problems he had last year.
However, being more neutral Lane may be the 9th man in a 8 man rotation. I figure there is one back up big come PAC 10 time and he and Stover will fight for that spot. Lane is a great kid, and hopefully he will develop into a good player.
Lane has shown potential...
He needs to decide what direction he wants to go in. If he stays smaller, he could try and work on his offensive skills and athleticism, to potentially play some 3. If he decides to bulk up, he needs to work on his rebounding, defense, and strength to play the 4. I really don’t want to see him playing the 5 – so hopefully Stover has taken some steps forward, just in case RN and Josh Smith need rest or are in foul trouble.

by 


















