Three Elements of UCLA's Malaise: Honeycutt, Nelson & Howland's Uneven "Discipline"

I was cringing after I blogged about tatoo and NBA tyler yesterday.
As iterated above, Howland continues to display high school coaching preferentials, it’s sick and the 4 letters deserve better; probably does not help get top (hardworking) recruits to reconsider Westwood either. How many more years under contract?

Our boxing out is embarrassing. I haven’t seen one instance where our guys locate their player while the ball is in the air and put their body on them. You know why? Because they’ve never had to box out a day in their lives.

Also, how many charges does Reeves Nelson have this year? 5? 10? 23? He needs to learn how to pull up or jump stop. That’s on Howland.

Last thing…regarding Honeycutt. He will never succeed in the NBA if he doesn’t learn how to dribble. He’s not big/thick enough for that to be an excuse. Look at the kind of player Tayshaun Prince is, and that’s what Honeycutt could be if he refined his game.

I put up a long Fan Post that was stimulated by this Post.

However, I have a few comments that fit better here:

I have a question for the stat gurus here: What are the +/- numbers for Nelson and Honeycutt and are there other players and combinations which net out better for us?

I’m really disappointed because I think both Nelson and Honeycutt started out well. Reeves seemed the second coming of LMR — just a hard nosed get it done guy, lunch bucket go to work style — and somewhat selfless. Honeycutt, playing hurt, showed flashes of greatness. I don’t recall either having “attitude” problems last year.

And, I’m not as concerned about “attitude” as I am about performance.

I don’t care what facial expressions Honeycutt has, so long as he is playing to the best of his ability. I think we ought not interpret or get upset by any players facial expressions. Some here were upset with Shipp because he smiled — yet over and over again, we were told that he smiled because he just loved playing the game — and I believe that to be true; I found it healthy and will fondly remember him for it. In a like manner, Honeycutt seems to really enjoy playing and is supposed to be somewhat goofy. Fine with me so long as he plays all out hard all the time. And, I really don’t care about Reeves tattoos — they have nothing to do with how he plays and are a personal statement about himself that I can live with; all I care about is that he play to the best of his ability all of the time.

I think we need to keep our focus on the prize — players who represent the best of Coach’s Pyramid — who reach “satisfaction” game in and game out.

I think our complaint is that neither Nelson nor Honeycutt can say that they have played to the best of their ability, moment by moment — and that CBH is doing nothing apparent to teach them that they must.

I would prefer he start those lessons, soon, even if it costs us a game or two — because the failure to teach those lessons has already cost us a game or two. I’d rather lose with guys who can be “satisfied” with their effort than those who cannot.

All of this goes to Howland’s ability to teach. We see it as favoritism. I’m wondering if he isn’t just an unskilled teacher. And, that is the subject of my Fan Post.

that turned the ball over a lot was the 2005 squad

the 2011 squad turns it over and gets turnovers at a slightly lower clip, but it has much less overall experience.

We are playing to me about the minimum standard I would come to expect from UCLA, but coming off one of the worst seasons ever I can handle what we are and where we are headed now.

My bigger concern is not the players on the floor, but the sustainability of the squad. Howland needs a solid young PG yesterday. The clock is ticking on getting a championship caliber pg to keep our title chances strong year after year. That being said if this team stays intact I don’t hesitate in saying it will be at minimum a sweet 16 team.

I am personally saving my bitterness and angst for TH and RN for either their leaving too early for the NBA or a junior season without another leap in improvement. It is also a decent chance to be in the title hunt next season.. TH, RN will improve at minimum slightly. Josh Smith in shape improves markedly, The Wears provide at minimum extra depth and fouls, BL could improve if we can use him and recognize his strengths instead of trying to make him a banger (or he will transfter). Stover will either learn to catch a pass or not if not then the 3 senior guards might learn to not pass it to him when he has almost no chance to catch it. I can still see ML improving into a good shooter now (that is a far cry from what was a terrible shooter 2 seasons ago. Lamb will be better and Powell will be exciting. If Powell can defend and cause havoc as a frosh and we are not running and pressing then Howland is a fool.

Unlike most I can’t get too high or too low game to game. We were not as strong as our record recently nor is the sky falling or TH and RN anywhere near as awful as a Dragovic. Comparing good basketball players because they appear at times to lack effort to a worthless player who might make a few 3 ptrs once in a while and refused to play team baskeball at all is a travesty of a comparison. Dragovic was a terrible team basketball player. On a scale of 1 to 10 of team basketball players World B. Free was a 2 and Dragovic is a 1. Nothing is worse than both a lack of effort and a selfish prick on the court.

TH and RN need to clean it up and stay in every possession mentally like each one matters. I don’t question their being team players at all. This team is mostly fun to watch because they share the ball almost to a fault. (the fault would be seeing an almost open Stover and thinking he might catch it and score) Yes the careless turnovers grate on me, but TH is not the only guilty one. Yes TH needs to be more aggressive staying in front of him man when he has no fouls (then again maybe guarding the player most likely to attack is a bad coach’s choice) Yes RN gets out of control bringing it up and gets a charge and neglects to block out at the line. I believe these things are easily cleaned up. RN also happens to be our best player at times leading the break. Our guards need to step it up in that area as well.

This team is oh so close and I get the same feeling and joy at times that the 2005 version gave me, so I can only look forward to the next game and hope game by game we can clean up that mental game.

Weren’t we all just singing reeves praises for his M2M defense as recently as a week ago? Apparently the sky is falling again…

Only has to be for a possession or two, but yank them from the game, tell them directly why they’re sitting down, ask them if they’re ready to play and if so, put them back in.

No this isn’t from the book “All I Really Need to Know I learned in Kindergarten” but it could have been!

I also agree that they are capable of better.

I also agree that others get the quick hook. TL and BL, for example, get a quick hook after a mistake. JS has gotten it a little bit.

We lost at Cal for two reasons. 1) Terrible shooting in the first half. (We had our normal rash of turnovers.) We had many good looks that we simply did not knock down. We went down by as many as 15 and had to fight hard to get back to even. Fatigue cost us at the end of the game and in overtime. 2) Inability to defend the high pick and roll.

ML was on Guttierez in the second half down the stretch, and in the overtime. It didn’t make any difference. ML was rubbed off on high screens and Guttierez was able to take it to the basket against JS or RN, who was guarding the screener. Guttierez was too quick for either big man. He also passed for easy baskets when weak side help arrived. My solution would have been to double team Guttierez on the screens, but that might have led to easy roll baskets. Guttierez’ performance was, IMHO, a result of Montgomery’s scheme, and our inability to adjust. He played great, but was getting very easy baskets or free throws.

I am not as quick to jump on CBH, as Class of 66 or Bellerophone. CBH is already criticized for being an overly restrictive coach, and coaching in a program where the players have no fun. Having the players buy into the system and avoiding mutiny is part of the delicate balance of coaching. Different players react to different prompts. RN, for example, is playing much harder now than he did during the preseason and he is a reason for the team’s resurgence during the Pac10. Benching the star players when they make a mistake would have very negative consequences.

Don’t get me wrong. I am very much frustrated by the lapses in play. My personal coaching method would be to iron these problems out during the pre-Pac10 games, and impose the discipline by reduced playing time then to set the tone. That would likely mean we take a few early season losses, which matters in the race to get to the NCAA Tournament, and CBH’s job would be on the line if he did that, so even that strategy is risky.

It is easy to chirp from the outside. I say this not as a critcism of the other posters. I am really venting my own frustration. Unless you know the interpersonal dynamics involved, it is hard to criticize with any assurance that you have enough information. The Drew Gordon situation is an extreme that proves the point. Gordon left after 5 or 6 games because he didn’t like our style of play. Imagine if RN and TH left the team. I am not saying they would leave if they were disciplined. I am saying that unless you are involved in the day to day dynamics it is hard to know.

Also, a small dose of discipline doesn’t work. CBH has (infrequently) pulled TH out after bad turnovers, and it does not seem to have an effect. TH plays with an air of entitlement, meaning he can make 5 bad passes for every great pass and that seems to be ok with him. Are you willing to bench him for a half or 10 minutes to make a point and perhaps lose a game because of it.

TH and RN have to play large minutes in order for the team to win. I am absolutely certain that the team goes over turnovers in game film sessions and CBH rails against them that they have to make better decisions.

Discipline worked so much better in Coach’s era. Players did not go to the pros early. Parents backed up the coaches. Maybe the only thing to do is to have only lunch bucket players. I don’t think we would be happy with a team full of BL’s without the TH’s. All I am saying is it may not be so easy to use the bench as the solution for sloppy play with your star players.

Each player could do it all at times, but neither guy ever took it to the next level to lead this team. Arguably, the only seemingly difference between the two was that Josh had a better surrounding cast and was able to get away with taking 20 minutes off when he wanted to. This team needs TH to be the player Josh could not, and few here on BN see that happening.

so went to kenpom. By his ranking, Honeycutt is just 60th in the conference in TO’s per possession; 5th on the team. He’s also 4th in the conference in block percentage (defined as the percentage of opponents’ two-point shots that are blocked by the player while he is on the court). He’s also 23rd in the Pac in assist rate (assists divided by the field goals made by the player’s teammates while he is on the court), and the 2nd-best forward in that category.
 
Having said that, I think the concern over Honeycutt’s TO’s is valid. Pomeroy doesn’t (yet?) have a way to quantify bone-headed plays per possession, but I’d wager Honeycutt would be in the top 10 or 20 in the Pac in that category as well – he seems to have more ‘passes to nowhere’ than anyone else, with the possible exception of Nelson. This is more frustrating since most observers with a basic level of basketball knowledge can sense Honeycutt is capable of so much more than we’re seeing – Don MacLean doesn’t call him ‘The Toolbox’ because he thinks Honeycutt is merely a decent player. I said before the season started that Honeycutt needed to average 20 and 10 for us to have a good season; he’s currently posting 12.7 and 7.5. It’s all the more frustrating when he shows that he can be a dominating player – see his 33 points and 9 boards against a Kansas team with an All-American caliber forward and at least three other forwards that would be all-Pac 10 at any school in our league. (His scoring average is just 11.9 in the 25 games not played in Allen Fieldhouse.)

It is a true reflection of Howland’s perspective on it – that Honeycutt plays more minutes than the guy who is the team’s true warrior and MVP, Malcolm Lee.

Um, the difference is a total of 38 minutes over 26 games – that’s not a lot. Honeycutt has had 4 or more fouls once this season. Lee has had 4 or more fouls nine times. Anderson and Lamb are both viable backups at SG. On the other hand, there isn’t a true backup SF.

In my 35 years of watching UCLA basketball, young teams are always very frustrating to watch and are prone to make you scratch your head. This team is no exception, but to CBH’s credit they are one game away from 20 wins, and (I don’t want to jinx anything) a virtual shoe-in for the NCAA tourney.

I watched the replay of this game, and would like to remind people that the game was decided by two clearly “homer” ref calls. 1) Reeves was clearly fouled twice at the end of regulation driving to the basket with no call made. We would have had FT’s and the lead with less than 30 secs on the clock. 2) The call to foul out JS in OT changed the game. That was the weakest call against JS that night. I am tired of refs allowing small guys to simply run into anyone bigger, then flop like you’re dying, to be rewarded with FT’s. This does not happen in Olympic Bball, NBA, or even the WNBA.

We lost that game not just because of effort issues, but because of the typical homer issues. This young team almost overcame the homerism of the Bay area. That my friends is an incredible feat, and we should be applauding them, not berating them.