Basketball: 2010-11 UCLA Preseason Expectations and Success
by Class of 66 on Mar 13, 2011 9:13 AM PST
Email
PrintBumped. A good discussion topic. Go Bruins. [DC]
There's been a lot of talk here about this team having met the minimum preseason expectations set for it. For some, that may be true.
Not for me.
This team, this coach and this staff did not meet my preseason expectations.
Before today, I never got into the "expectations" discussions because, in my mind, expectations are not objective -- they are subjective.
With no disrespect intended toward any poster here, even though we challenged for the Pac 10 championship and are going to the tournament, I do not think our players coach or staff have had a successful season. Said another way, they have not met my expectations.
I am old -- and, therefore, old school. Although I understand the value of setting quantifiable expectations -- like "20 wins and a tourney bid" or "Pac 10 championship", I choose not to use such standards to set my expectations or define "success".
My standard is simple:
Success is the peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing that you did your best to become the best that you are capable of becoming. -- John Wooden
That is all I "expect" of every Bruin team in every sport. Whatever the talent level, whatever the context or circumstances, I expect us to live up to Coach's standard.
That will account for teams that have serious injuries, face bad officiating, or are matched against better talent -- all of which we have had this year.
I am prepared to lose. I am not prepared to lose playing at a level lower than that of which we are capable.
By this standard, many of our players, our coach, and our staff have failed. Because it is clear to me, that we rarely did our best or played to our capabilities.
I do not care how many games we win, or conference titles for which we compete -- if we win those games or titles playing without the intensity, focus, control and team play that are defined in the pyramid.
It is easy to win 20 games. You simply take an extremely talented team and have it play poorly 1/3 of the time. Or, in our case, have it play just enough excellent minutes to win games that should never have been close or in question.
Interestingly, Dan Guerrero embraced a subjective standard when he fired CTS -- "I want a team that will fire out on every play." (paraphrase) And, as upset with our football program as I am, I think they came closer to his standard during their season than did our basketball team.
I think we have talented basketball players who, on paper, are a level above their counterparts on the football team.
Why have the basketball players performed so poorly?
Much has been written about that on BN for the past few years and there is no reason to go into it, in depth, again.
But, it seems clear to me that we are failing on the "mental" side of the game -- we have talent that is not playing up to its potential.
That is on the players. And, their teachers.
They are both failing. The players simply do not demonstrate, on a consistent basis, a commitment to the principles of the Pyramid. And, the coaches seem incapable of teaching them to do so. To me teaching is far more than X and O. Great teachers, like Coach, inspire. They inspire players who love them and want to please them. And, they inspire players who do not love them, but respect them enough to understand that greatness lies at the end of Coach's advice.
Our players do not show that they get it -- that they cannot claim satisfaction in the "win/loss" column, or in a tournament "seed" -- that satisfaction comes from within.
And, our coaches do not show that they are capable of teaching our students to get it.
Incorporating the greatness of UCLA is more than wearing a little pyramid on one's sleeve. In fact, I find it insulting that with the Pyramid on our uniforms, with those 4 letters on our chests, we play down from our potential, most of the time.
The Pyramid is a way of life, not a fashion accessory. Maybe, people should have to earn the right to wear it like warriors earn the right to wear battle ribbons.
I, for one, do not think we have earned a right to go to the tournament. Not that we will not be competitive. But, that we are not playing successfully, as Coach defined it. The tournament should be a reward for a successful season. We do not deserve that reward.
Thinking about this all season long, as "expectations" have been discussed has been very difficult for me.
I really like Coach Howland, the person. I say it often, he "gets" UCLA in ways that no other coach in the country can or will. And, he truly understands the Pyramid. My concern is the apparent disconnect between his substantive knowledge and his ability to convey it in an inspirational way. Like many teachers, he probably needs a particular type of student to fully appreciate and learn from him. He needs to get back to recruiting those kids of students.
And, I really like our players. The problem is that I like them more off the court than I do on it. They represent us well. In every interview with every one of them, I am impressed by how articulate and perceptive they seem to be. Compared to most athletes, ours shine. And, I like their distinct personalities.
And, I see the good and potential in them on the court, too. I have been a Reeves Nelson fan from Day 1; his passion and emotion, even if not fully controlled (see "Emotions" in the Pyramid), are the foundation for greatness. I like Tyler Honeycutt's pure love of playing the game; I've compared him to Josh Shipp, who I also liked; this should be fun and there is nothing wrong with smiling if one is playing well; it is a manifestation of "success". Malcolm and Zeek have played their hearts out -- even when hurt; Zeek has probably come as close to "success" as anyone on this team. Josh is young and on his way; I admire his ability to play with people hanging on or hacking him at every turn; it would be easy to quit, as Shaq ultimately did; but, he needs the focus that will come from seasoning -- he will be a "success" with time. Jerime and Anthony Stover have shown both improvement and ego control; they have made the most of their time; like everyone else, I am pleased (and relieved) that Jerime has finally got "it".
So, with a coach I love and players I admire, a team that competed for the Pac 10 title and earned a tourney birth, how dare I say that this team did not meet "expectations"?
Because we could and should have been so much more.
And, to claim "success" without looking at the way we played is to ignore the teachings that made UCLA special. We are John Wooden's school. We do not define "success" in wins or losses -- Coach never did. We define it in terms of the peace of mind one gets from playing to one's full potential. We have not done that.
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.
85 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Objective Expectations
Thank you for so clearly articulating why some of us are disappointed in the performance of the team even though we may have met some of our “expectations” from the beginning of the season. Simplifying our expectations into a threshold of wins and an NCAA berth allows us to have clear goals that we can easily focus on throughout the season, but a goal like playing to the best of our abilities cannot easily be measured.
Let me just say this...
Everyone calm down, we knew we wernt going to be that great this year. weve done better than expected, and next year…..
HOOOOOOOOO BOOOOOYYYYYYY.
Whoever does not think we are serious national title contenders is retarded. Were going to have everyone back, a year more developed. I cant wait for the run next year.
Don't know if you've been lurking for a while
but if not (or especially if so!) I’d suggest reading some BN content from throughout the season.
Trying to convince others of your point of view is helped by both having actual evidence and by not using language you should have outgrown in junior high.
Speaking of evidence, if you have it in writing that no current UCLA player will declare for the draft and no current UCLA player will transfer, please share it. It is true everyone is eligible to come back. Whether they will or not is unsure – and also a topic of much previous discussion here on BN.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
by KSBruin on Mar 13, 2011 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hello, my name is Greg, and I'm retarded.
…apparently.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
I am not sure
How much more this team could have done. At the beginning of the year, I wrote our biggest problem is our bench. We are not deep. We have a starting PG that has played all but one game in the PAC 10 hurt. He is now hurting so bad he can’t go left. Yet we have no choice but to play him because we have such a weak bench.
Stover may be good some day but now is a huge liability on offense. Yet we have to start Stover every game because we need to protect Smith. Lamb is similar except he does not start. Anderson is playing better than he ever has but he is not a starting PAC 10 PG. Lane is the ninth man and it is not close.
When your bench is that bad, it is going to be tough to play 40 minutes. That is not the only reason, nor am I arguing that. But I said I am not sure what more this team could have done.
Yes it could have played better than Thursday night, its worse game of the year. But I am saying for a season, for a young team, etc.
When the starters are playing around 35 minutes a game
The weariness is gonna catch up and they’re gonna start coming out flat. It also explains why they start relaxing and play lazy on D when they get a large lead. This doesn’t excuse the team but at least it makes them a little bit less perplexing.
by Objection Penguin on Mar 12, 2011 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
Even if we had a deeper bench
That doesn’t necessarily mean that we would use it. History suggests that we would not unless we were in a lot of foul trouble. In the past, after losses, CBH has often expressed regret at not playing his bench more and having his starters more rested for the end of the game. If he’s ever said the opposite of that, I’m not aware of it.
CBH has been good about benching hurt people over the years
1. He never rested Zeek though this year. Zeek’s health is terrible and seemingly getting worse.
2. He has always used some off the bench. I am not saying he would go 11 deep. But this year he has 6. And Anderson can’t play for Reeves or Smith, the two most limited on minutes. He was playing Lane 20 minutes a game at the start hoping he could be the man and Lane could not stop anyone on D.
3. He always says he should have played the bench more in press conference when asked. You are right. I don’t put as much weight to it because he has never seemed to do it. It is nicer to say about his say than the alternative, e.g. “No, we can’t play Lane more because he can’t stop anyone.”
Seems to me
Most of our box scores from the past had the starters playing like 34-38 minutes with maybe the weakest of the five playing high 20’s to low 30’s. To me it’s not really about whether the subs get in the game, but whether they play more than 5 minutes here or there in non foul trouble/injury situations.
Guards yes, Bigs No
There were always a few high minute guys but many were not. Especially in the front court, were our bench right now is very weak.
1. 2005-6 AA was always huge minute guy. By comparison I am not saying Malcolm Lee would play 28 with a good backup. Lee should play AA minutes. But even then DC played 19 minutes a game off the bench on the first final four team and played every game. Farmer averaged 30 a game. Also, CB played only 26 minutes a game and MIchael Roll played in all but one game and averaged 14.7 minutes a game. CB was a very good defender, MR was a zone buster. Nice option to have. AA2 also averaged 14 a game.
2. 2006-7. MR averaged 16 minutes a game and AA2 averaged 16. LMR, the starting Center only averaged 23 a game. RW was a low minute guy but there was no drop off on defense when he played 1 or 2 and he was a better athlete than the guys in front of him. Again a very good bench.
3. 2007-8. The best starting five by 5 by far, thus only two subs (after Roll gets hurt) averaging 10 minutes a game. LMR aveages 13 minutes a game as KL only played 29. AA2 averages 15 a game and again LRMAM only plays 29. The bench plays the least role of any year because of four future pros and JS. But it features the starting center from a final four team and a very experienced AA2.
Those double digit minutes subs were key. This year, by comparison, Lane averaged over 15 minutes a game among the bigs. Do I need to say more?
That hurts runs, consistency, etc. Do you play RN more minutes than KL if you have a choice? I don’t think he is a better physical big.
Those are averages
And since those teams were better, we were able to put a way a few more teams and have the starters sit, especially in non conference, skewing the averages. When the “real” games rolled around, foul trouble seems to be the only way for a bench player to see significant minutes.
That works for the AAs but not for the LRMs
AA and DC (after his freshman year) averaged that way. They were not out for significant minutes. But taking that as a ceiling, others did not average that many minutes. That means those that did not play 33-35 minutes were resting more than the minimum or not playing full time for whatever reason. (Sometimes matchup dictate different players for the role player level.)
Furthers, bigs can’t play that much and need rest because of pace, fouls, etc. For example, LRM averaged only 23 minutes a game. He was not just resting in blow outs. On this team, Smith is only averaging 21 a game. AA2 vs. Lane is not much of a comparison, even though Lane had played similar minutes at the same point in his career.
Smith can’t start either, according to CBH because of the SPTRs setting the tone, thus forces a lesser big to play the first key minutes.
I am not for letting CBH off the hook. He blew it recruiting. The bench is his fault. It is just I think next year we will be back with the Wears and Powell. While I think Powell is the potentiality better player, the Wears will be solid up front depth at a minimum. Something missing this year.
Mata and Aboya are actually the players I was attempting to reference
When I said the weakest of the five. Over their careers they were pretty much interchangeable to CBH, playing about the same percentage of minutes overall according to kenpom. The rest of the positions, however, were essentially locked up by the starters, the guards you mentioned, as well as the Prince.
Perhaps our depth problem
and the question of Howland’s ability to convey his knowledge in an inspirational way, or in other words, the ability of Howland to really “connect” with his players, are not mutually exclusive issues? There has been a lot of attrition lately, and quite a few recruiting misses as well.
Depth should never be a problem here at UCLA. It just shouldn’t. Focus and inspiration should never be a question either. I am firmly in the “bar needs to be set higher” camp.
The depth problem is CBH's
This is his team. He should get the blame for that. He made a number of mistakes of all types.
The bar does need to be set higher, for next year. He did what was needed.
Agreed
I’m going to have to agree with DCBruins on this one. Everyone is free to define standards of success in whatever way they wish (it is a very subjective thing to measure, after all), and I think that CBH has done a decent job of coaching this year.
We’ve discussed at length the misses that CBH had in recruiting with previous classes, and I think we’d be foolish to feel like those classes haven’t had an impact on our depth today. But with what he’s been given and the players he had at his disposal, he managed to squeak out a 20 win season.
The only problem I have with this depth argument is that to me, it doesn’t explain why the team comes out so flat early in many games. At that point, you would think our starters would be refreshed and could build a lead, instead of having to play catch up game after game. If someone could shed light on this issue, I’d be more than happy to hear it.
With All Due Respect DC and Penguin -- I Disagree
Fatigue is not the issue. It cannot be used to explain playing unfocused, flat basketball for the first 20 minutes of the game. This team sucked for substantial amounts of time at the beginning of games or after half time — neither are times where fatigue should be an issue. And, in fact, we closed gaps and won games with frenzies that occurred at the ends of games when players could claim to be tired. Most of the time, it was not a physical fatigue issue. It was mental lapses.
What more could they have done? Played with consistent and full effort each and every time they were on the floor. From the very first possession to the very last. Win or lose, that’s all I ask. Full effort. Playing to full potential. Or even something close to that.
And, what more could the coach have done? Teach them the meaning of playing one’s best at all times and inspire them to do it. Some times, inspiration comes with a sanction for not reaching deep enough. Sometimes it comes with praise for doing so. Teaching requires when to use which lesson plan. Good teachers know that.
And, then, there’s the issue that Nestor mentions, develop the bench. I actually think Lamb will be a very good player. I was baffled when Lane was pulled when he was being most effective. The same can be said of Stover who, while he is not an offensive threat, plays good D (dare I say better than Smith? If not so, close) and this team wins on D. Stover with a rebound or block shot can set up a fast break, transition basket IF this coach could teach this team how to run a fast break — which for some reason he cannot seam to do.
One of the joys of watching the women, today, was to see them execute in transition.
My bottom line: I am not willing to say that many of our players played to their utmost ability consistently. I actually think Stover did — his ability is somewhat limited, but he played as well as he could play most of the time. Same with Zeek.
Which of our players had a successful season as defined by Coach?
And, can CBH be feeling the “self-satisfaction” that defines success.
What more could they have done? Played and coached so that there was never any question that they were doing their best.
Who here can say, honestly, that we played to our ability most of the time?
sjh
by Class of 66 on Mar 12, 2011 4:14 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
And, speaking of fatigue and injuries
why in the world were Zeek and Malcolm playing at the end of the Oregon game? Are we trying to have another “Kevin Prince experience”?
sjh
by Class of 66 on Mar 12, 2011 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No clue on Zeek
Malcolm played tentative during the game. He was scared to push the knee. I think he wanted Lee to play more at game speed to fully test the knee.
"Played to our ability most of the time."
If that is the test, then the games that most come to mind are CSUN, Kansas, BYU, and Arizona. I didn’t see the St. John’s game or read much about it so I am in the dark about how consistently we played then.
And erratic performance often results from inexperience (underclassmen starting and making up a majority of the off the bench players) which explains the maddening inability to play to our ability most of the time (get a full 40 minutes of championship basketball every game.)
by peggysue69 on Mar 12, 2011 9:29 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
please stop w the "inexperience" excuse
Tyler and Reeves were not “green” starters coming into this season. They had as much experience as starters as JF and AA did their in sophomore seasons. Moreover Lee and Anderson are juniors. So stop the inexperience bs. It reminds me of “blindos” from yester years.
by Nestor on Mar 13, 2011 8:28 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
With all due respect Nestor, maybe inexperience is a comparative quality?
Malcolm Lee and Anderson are juniors – I won’t buy the inexperience issue there.
But with Tyler Honeycutt and Reeves Nelson, I think you can make a slight case for inexperience there. Yes, they are not “green” starters coming into this season, but they are only sophomores. When looking at strong tourney teams in the past, they’ve been loaded with a significant number of “experienced” seniors. Reeves and Tyler have a year under their belts, yes, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call them experienced players.
At times, raw talent can overcome inexperience though, which I believe was the case for JF and AA (correct me if I’m wrong – but didn’t they both come in as 5 star recruits?). I suppose you can argue that Honeycutt has that untapped potential, but I believe Reeves is really pushing with what talent he has. And when you factor in the rest of our rotation players, the “experience” level further drops. Stover, Smith, Lamb? None of them played last season, yet we give them significant minutes. It’s been discussed at length here, but bench depth is just a crucial factor in this process.
If these players continue to show these inconsistencies next year, I agree, their will be no excuse. But for now, I am just of the opinion that there are some necessary growing pains we’re going to have to experience.
According to Scout...
…JF was a 5-star rated PG, ranked #5 in the country. AA was a 4-star rated SG, ranked #8 in the country.
In comparison, Honeycutt was a 5-star rated SF, ranked #3 in the country. Nelson was a 3-star rated PF, ranked #36 in the country.
Nestor is right. Inexperience is not an excuse. This team sucked because they lacked focus and mental toughness. Honeycutt and Nelson were some of the worst offenders in this regard. Honeycutt was mentally spaced out, with one foot out the door, and when Nelson does his pubescent sulk/pout routine, he has no focus and is a major liability.
Those were never problems for JF or AA, despite being at the exact same point in terms of grade (sophomores) and experience (second year as starters).
Sorry I was going by Rivals
Where I believe both JF and AA were 5-star recruits (again, the memory is hazy), and Honeycutt was a 4-star and Nelson was a 3-star.
I don't which service you rely on matters...
…I prefer Scout and you prefer Rivals and they rate differently. That said, Honeycutt is currently projected as a first-round NBA pick. I agree: he has first round talent. On the other hand, he has YMCA Rec. League level mental toughness and focus.
But in terms of talent, Honeycutt is a more athletically talented basketball player than Afflalo, or even Farmar, were, and I expect Honeycutt will get drafted than AA, JF, or LRMAM did. Those three guys are cashing NBA checks and aren’t fringe guys barely on the roster: hell, AA is a crucial cog in the Nuggets’ line-up now.
In other words, this was a long way of saying that, to me, talent is pretty much equal. I think JF and AA were working with about the same raw athletic/basketball talent than Honeycutt and Nelson are working with.
To me, and I say this again, since experience was the same as well, the difference between those two Ben Ball Warriors and the two current players is a lack of mental toughness, basketball IQ, and focus.
Also...
…Stover was a 4-star rated C, ranked #12 in the country. Brendan Lane was a 4-star rated PF, ranked #22 in the country. Tyler Lame was a 4-star SG, ranked #11 in the country.
LMR, on the other hand, was a 4-star rated PF, ranked only #23 in the country, whereas Josh Shipp was a 4-star rated SG, ranked #24 in the country.
So to me, this bench came in with as many, if not more stars, than the other key players on those AA/JF teams. Hell, LRMAM was an unranked 3-star SF.
Talent is not the reason. This squad has objectively talented players at every position (i.e. guys who can play basketball and do so very well), but this squad’s problem remains, as Nestor and Achilles have pointed out, is that this is a mentally soft team with no focus whatsoever. Inexperience is a BS cop-out for sycophants who want to just make excuses for this team.
I was with you until the last sentence
I don’t mind opinions that run contrary to mine – in fact I encourage them. If I make an argument and I’m provided with a valid counter-argument then hey, at least I’ve learned from it. And until the last sentence, I was with you all the way.
But (and I think this is a very prevalent issue here at BN) that last sentence is just a dismissive throwaway that gets rid of the “baby with the bathwater.” Some people don’t want to accept inexperience as a legitimate explanation as to why this team underachieves. That’s fine. But to then categorize it as a “BS cop-out for sycophants who want to just make excuses for this team” goes a little too far for me.
Apart from the fact that it belittles someone’s opinion (which I feel is contrary to what this forum should be about) I think it throws away a key explanatory variable. I’m not arguing that inexperience is the ENTIRE reason as to why this team is under-performing – far from that. I very much agree that this team lacks the necessary drive and focus to treat their competition and the four letters their wear on their chests with the respect that is required. However, I do believe that part of the reason for our failures this year has been inexperience. As previously stated, we run a very tight rotation, 7 or 8 guys seeing playing time at the most (this presumes that Brendan Lane is classified as a “rotation player”). Of those 8, Joshua Smith, Anthony Stover, and Tyler Lamb are all getting significant minutes for the first times in their career, and are all experiencing very significant growing pains which I do not need to rehash here. Then there are players like Tyler Honeycutt, Reeves Nelson, and Brendan Lane who are all sophomores, with one year of “experience” under their belts. And I would argue that that year of experience was a horrible one – they experienced poor work habits of last year’s group (Drew Gordon and he-who-must-not-be-named come to mind) that I think this years’ players are still working to over come. That “experience,” if anything, may be working against them at this point.
With all of that, that’s 6 of our 8 rotation players that had AT THE MOST one year of playing time coming into this season, a year that probably had detrimental impacts to the development of their working and playing habits. The other two rotation players are juniors, and at this point we’d argue are the more consistent players in our rotation. So (and I apologize if this comes off as standoffish) don’t tell me that I’m being a sycophant with a BS cop-out excuse. I feel my views are legitimate and I can back them up. If you disagree, then you disagree, and that’s that.
It's not one year
It’s two at this point from our most inconsistent players, and they still have the same problems they had at the beginning of the year. In fact, given that the Oregon game was arguably the worst game we’ve played this season, you could make the argument that we’ve regressed despite being more experienced. So no, inexperience does not fly as a reason.
Once, again, I'm not saying inexperience is the main reason
But I’m saying it most definitely is.
You can take away Brendan Lane, Reeves Nelson, and Tyler Honeycutt from my argument if you wish. That’s fine. But that still leaves three rotation players with the inexperience issue. And that matters most definitely matters.
I don’t know if you follow professional basketball or read the works of authors like Kelly Dwyer, but they’ll all argue that one of the most underestimated factors in basketball is the production from the 7th and 8th rotation players. They’re given significant minutes and they need to be able to perform with the time they’re given. As detailed here previously, Stover, Lamb, and Lane are all zeroes on one end of the floor, and in the case of Stover and Lamb, a lot of that can be attributed to their lack of playing time in previous years and development on that end – also known as inexperience.
Again, I’m not arguing that inexperience is even this team’s biggest issue. I’m just arguing that it is one (of many) factors that need to be taken into consideration.
Dwyer?
BDL’s Dwyer? I don’t think he does a terrible job, but using him as a reference doesn’t do you many favors.
I’m not taking anyone away from anything. Nelson and Honeycutt have the lion’s share of the minutes on this team, and they’re the most inconsistent, and at this point, it’s simply not true that they are inexperienced. So if experience doesn’t matter to two of our starters who have the most impact on this team, then experience is not valid to explain away the awful efforts this team comes out with. Do Stover, Lamb, and Lane set the tone for this team? No.
But that's generalizing again
Again, I’m not saying that Stover, Lamb, or Lane set the tone for this team. I’m just saying that it’s a factor for them when they step out on the court. And between them, that’s a significant chunk of minutes. Ergo, experience has an impact.
And say what you will of Dwyer’s questionable analyses – he at least employs advanced basketball statistics in his analysis.
Which is just a ridiculous argument from you
You’re always going to have young players on any team, and they’re likely to play reserve roles, as is the case with this team. Ergo, if inexperience is a factor for this team, it’s a factor for every team in the NCAA, which makes it not a factor at all.
Reeves
Do you think Reeves is not any better or worse than the end of last year?
All ways
You wrote: “you could make the argument that we’ve regressed despite being more experienced.” Do you think Reeves is a not any better, or worse, than the end of last year?
I wasn't aware I was singling Reeves out
Well, actually, I am aware that I wasn’t, but to answer your question, skill wise he is better. Mentally, not really.
I thought you were singling out Reeves and Honeycutt
I think Reeves is better both ways. Mentally, he asked to cover Vucevic and Williams and stepped up. He has passed more and is not the selfish blackhole of last year.
Of course, he is still the jerk who threw the ball at Lane and got a T in the UW game. Not saying he is ideal but IMO he is a much better player than last year in all ways.
I don't
His improvement in skill is easier to measure in the number of things he can do now that he couldn’t do last year. His attitude, however, is a long term measurement that can’t be made just from taking samples of individual games. That we still have to discuss him disappearing/pouting/acting up at teammates/getting T’d up means that he is not better mentally than he was last year. Maybe he’ll come back next year and learn how to control himself and keep his head in the game.
Good Point
Overall he is better but his mental issues are still and ah issue.
DC-TY discussion
Solid debate. Although I am an inexperience (front line only) advocate, it does nothing to salve my disappointment. And that Duck disaster in Staples, well, that IMHO fully supports Tydide’s view. A sounder thinker would watch that game (and others, even some we won) and view inexperience as an immaterial factor and no justification for all this sadness to date.
But let’s see what happens from here on out. Although it looks very tough, if we play Arizona/BYU type championship basketball, in the next several weeks, we can all be surprised. And although our situation is very, very difficult, I would be delighted to eat my words about how our inexperience is an impediment on our part to championship caliber of play.
by peggysue69 on Mar 13, 2011 11:39 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
"sound thinker" not "sounder thinker"
by peggysue69 on Mar 13, 2011 11:42 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Inexperience is a cop-out reason...
…and if you’re offended that I’m saying people who use it are sycophants who want to make excuses for this mentally-soft team, then that’s your problem, not mine.
Look at the 2006-2007 team that lost to Florida in the national title game. That team was led by JF at PG and AA at SG. Both were true sophomores with the same level of experience as Honeycutt and Nelson. LRMAM was starting at PF as a true freshman. Our bench contributors included true freshmen MR, AA2, and DC, as well as true sophomore LMR. JS was posed to be a significant player that season as well, until he got hurt and was lost for the whole year. Why do I say they were significant? If you look at the statistics, let’s say points scored, you’ll see DC, MR, AA2, and LMR were the #6, #7, #8, and #9 scorers for UCLA that season, behind only the five starters (JF, AA, CB, LRMAM, and RH).
When you break it down, you have 2 starters with only 1 year under their belt (AA and JF), another starter with no experience in college (LRMAM), and then 3 significant rotation players with no college experience (DC, MR, AA2), and another rotation player with 1 year on the team, but few minutes that season (LMR).
The only difference was the presence of two seniors: redshirt senior CB (coming off a season off due to injury) and true senior RH.
In comparison, this year’s squad has a true junior in Lazeric Jones running the point (so with no NCAA experience, for the sake of argument, let’s equate him to LRMAM who also had no NCAA experience; although if you remember the Prince was recently new to basketball whereas Zeek has prior JC basketball experience, but like I said, for the sake of argument, let’s equate them). So far, both teams have two sophomores with one year of starter’s experience (AA and JF vs. Honeycutt and Nelson) and one starter with no NCAA experience (LRMAM vs. Zeek).
The question then becomes: does CB and RH and their experience as seniors make the difference between a woefully inconsistent team (like this year’s edition of the Bruins) and a team one game short of winning banner #12?
My answer is a simple no. First, CB was coming off of injury, so there was a lot of rust to be shaken off. Moreover, his prior college experience almost overwhelmingly came at PG. With JF running the show, CB was moved to the wing. New position, one where he has minimal (if that) experience while in college. Second, CB to be equates to Malcolm Lee, the captain of this team and the most focused player on this Bruins’ squad. During that 2005-06 season, CB averaged 27.4 minutes per game, scored 7.6 points per game, 3.3 rebounds per game, and 2.3 assists per game. Lee, a true junior (so only one year less of experience than CB), is averaging 32.9 minutes per game, 13.0 points per game, 2.9 rebounds per game, and 2.1 assists per game. Based on those numbers, I’d say the advantage goes to Lee. But even without the numbers, Lee, when compared to CB, is a focused, experienced, mentally-tough basketball player who is committed to playing defense and within himself on offense. If anything, when comparing CB and Lee, in terms of experience, the advantage goes to Lee (who also had more years with Howland and his system than Bozeman did; in fact, Bozeman almost gets negative experience points for having to deal with that retard Lavin).
That only leaves true senior RH versus true freshman Josh Smith. If you compare the numbers, Smith is the better center, by a long shot. More points per game (10.6 vs. RH’s 7.0) and more rebounds per game (6.5 vs. RH’s 4.8). RH was a good role player and he had a great run in the tournament. In terms of experience, it’s not like Hollins had some crazy number of minutes: he was often a reserve or role player before his senior year, and in fact, the year prior (2004-2005) he was sitting behind Michael “Stone Hands” Fey (Hollins only started 6 games that season). Yes, technically, RH is the more experienced player compared to Josh Smith, so let’s give the advantage there to the 2005-2006 team (even if it’s a marginal one).
So, now we’re left with the question of whether Hollins versus Smith made the difference. We both know the answer to that.
If anything, this UCLA team is more balanced than the 2005-2006 team. If you look at the stats from that magical ride to the title game, the team relied almost exclusively on JF, AA, or to a lesser extent, LRMAM, for points. It was pretty much a two-man show and the other guys were key role players.
This team, on the other hand, is more balanced. The five starters are scoring between 9.4 PPG (Zeek) at the low-end to 13.9 PPG (Nelson) at the high-end, whereas the 2005-2006 players were scoring between 7.0 PPG (Hollins) at the low-end to 15.8 PPG (AA) at the high-end.
The bench players in 2005-2006 were much better contributors though (DC, MR, AA2, and LMR) than this year’s bench rotation guys (Lane, Stover, and Lamb). But like I said, DC, MR, and AA2 were all true freshmen. Lamb is the only true freshman of that group. Stover is a redshirt freshman (like LMR was) and Lane is a true sophomore. So, if anything, bench experience shows this year’s team has MORE experience on the bench than the 2005-2006 team.
At it’s core, the 2005-2006 team relied on two stars: JF and AA. They were the engine that made UCLA run. The other guys were all contributors who filled their respective roles perfectly. This team, if anything, is really a three-man core: Lee, Nelson, and Honeycutt.
Lee has shown all the focus and heart that we’ve seen in AA and JF. Honeycutt and Nelson, on the other hand, despite having the same EXPERIENCE as JF and AA, have nowhere near the heart and focus of AA and JF.
So yes, saying it’s inexperience is a f**king cop-out BS answer that sycophants are using to make excuses for a mentally-soft, weak team.
Deal with it.
JF and AA were clearly better players than TH and RN
and both were two way players, offense and defense.
Really?
Then explain why NBA scouts and draft experts are projecting Honeycutt to be drafted earlier in the first round than both Farmar went after his sophomore season and Afflalo went after his junior season.
I don’t buy that JF and AA were “better” players. They were better competitors and they worked harder. As a result, they got better results on the court. In terms of athletic ability, I think Honeycutt is superior to both, and Nelson might not be their equal, but he’s not far behind.
What made JF and AA was their mental toughness and drive. What hinders Honeycutt and Nelson is their inability to focus, their mental softness, and the simple fact they are lazy (Honeycutt) or unable to keep their emotions in check (Nelson).
JF and AA were better, not because of superior ability, but because of superior attitude and drive.
Maybe instead of just saying something, you should actually engage your brain and look at the statistics. If you compare the numbers of JF and AA to Honeycutt and Nelson, they’re more or less about even.
JF and AA knew how to step up when their team needed them to lead. Honeycutt and Nelson have no clue how to do that.
That’s the difference.
Are you done making excuses for this team? Shooting down your lame sycophantic reasons in thread after thread is getting old.
Honeycutt is nowhere near as strong as the two other guys
He’s a much slimmer build and the serious back injury he suffered before his freshman year has hampered his ability to fix that. Even though Honeycutt has probably 4 inches on Afflalo, Afflalo is 25-30 lbs. heavier. Honeycutt also needs to work on his ball handling, which would make him a lot more effective offensively.
Honeycutt’s likely to be drafted higher because he does have more potential, and because when he’s a professional basketball player he’ll have a lot more time to devote to getting stronger and improving fundamental skills. But right now he’s nowhere near as polished a basketball player as Farmar and Afflalo were.
by SuperBruinMan on Mar 14, 2011 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, sorry, but you fail too
What is with the sycophants lately? That is just a lame response.
Let’s see, first, why does Honeycutt need to be heavier? Honeycutt comes in at 6’8" and 188 pounds.
Corey Brewer, the guy who torched UCLA twice to keep us from making it an even dozen championships, is currently in the NBA: he’s also playing regular minutes (25.3 min. per game) and getting some numbers (8.2 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 1.3 APG).
Yeah, he’s 6’9" and 188 pounds.
Never mind that Josh Childress, Stanford’s standout player, was 6’8" and only 205 in his senior season. That’s only 17 pounds: given the age/class difference, I’m still not convinced that Tyler needs to bulk up to be effective.
But I’ll quote DCBruins since he really sums it up better than me:
If AA had Honeycutt’s body, he would be an All Star in the pros right now.
I think Reeves and Honeycutt are different
Honeycutt has more potential than AA or JF. He has less drive then either one of those. If AA had Honeycutt’s body, he would be an All Star in the pros right now.
However, Reeves is different. Reeves is less athletic than either one. He has at times played at a very high level at the maximum of his potential. His season stats are about where you think they would be going into the year with more assists.
But he also goes into funks. AA gets mad at himself he goes to work. Reeves get mad at himself he sulks. He is working on it and I THINK he is getting better. Reeves stepped up on D and took Williams and Vucevic. He wants the challenge at times. But he also throws the ball at his teammates.
Reeves is a competitor who is still learning to chanel his emotions. He has fairly regularly played to his ability and stepped up in big games often, remember he was PAC 10 player of the week after the BYU game.
That said, Reeves is fighting demons of his own making. I think he is getting better, but that is certianly debatable. What is not, IMO, is Reeves and Honeycutt are different players with different issues.
I like “Good Reeves”, I am not sure who Good Honeycutt is.
"Inexperience" is no longer an excuse when most of these kids play their sports from age 5.
With the advent of AAU and travelling squads, and year-round leagues, these guys know how to play by the time they set foot on campus. They have played with most of the kids at other schools over the years, and have had more than a decade to develop heart, pride, etc. The only thing that may differ is their ability to grow into their bodies.
Does Harrison Barnes need more experience? Did KLove or Derek Rose need to learn more about the game? This team exemplifies better than ever that the difference between where UCLA is today and the “elite” programs is nothing more than heart and coaching. Nolan Smith never takes a half off and never makes excuses. He just gets the job done for Puke and Coach I’d-Like-To-Buy-A-Vowel-Pat and continues to get better every game for it.
not really a fair comparison
comparing our current squad to guys who were the top freshmen talent in all of college basketball. Those guys are the exception, not the rule.
I'm aware of that
but those guys are so talented that inexperience is not as much of a factor—hence the exception, not the rule. the vast majority of freshmen are not ready to contribute like Barnes, Love, and Rose.
i'm with hoya on this
comparing anyone on our team to a Top 5 NBA draft selection is a stretch.
if this team had anyone of that caliber, we aren’t having this discussion right now because we probably would have won the Pac-10 outright.
"I have one word for you...Be careful."
-Jose Guillen
+!
By this time of the season, they should be playing like an experienced team, perhaps only with the exception of Josh Smith.
It is not just fatigue
The only coaching change Coach made from the good years pre-championships to post championships was he practiced the top seven or eight together as a unit instead of just the top five. The top players need to practice together and be somewhat interchangeable. (Obviously some will play more.)
We start each game with a sub in the game. A sub that did not start in the top 8 players even. We begin the games without our best offensive weapon and playing 4 on 5 on offense. CBH thinks he need this to protect Josh from fouls while the SPTRs are establishing tone. But that hurts our start. Sometimes we start shooting threes and forget about the inside which carries over to when Josh comes into the game.
Also, Zeek is nowhere near his ability right now. He has managed good games but is scared to bend his hand the wrong way and sometimes playing in considerable pain when he does. I wish he played 3 or any position other than PG, but that is what he is playing. And we do not have a good alternative. That kills the offense at times. If we had a DC behind a JF or a RW behind a DC; the starter would have rested for a month and come back strong. Instead we are stuck with a PG who can play good at times but then he re-re-re-re hurts his hand and goes into a funky. That makes him real inconsistent and unable to play to his ability.
Agree that Zeek's injury is a major blow to our team.
We are losing about 7 pts from the pg position, and he has difficulty running the offense.
Awesome!
Great way to start my sunday. It’s still not too late to end this season playing to our potential! Go BRUINS!
by BruinArts on Mar 13, 2011 9:06 AM PST via mobile reply actions
I agree we fail based on Coach's definition of success
And I think it’s a fail objectively. I really don’t think this team, by our old school standards, deserves anything. They played one inspired game all year, the last at Pauley. Even the Kansas loss, they played inspired about 1/2 the time.
I can’t figure out why they embarrasss the Pyramid. CBH lives it IMO. I can fault his tactics or siome coaching aspects, but that’s fluff. He gets it more than any coach here since Coach.
It’s not fatigue or sure as Hell shouldn’t be. Coach only played 7, maybe 8 occasionally, to the dismay of his critics like Bobby Asswipe Knight.
I think it’s the times and the players and the NBA effect. These players are not near the caliber in talent or temperament of Coach’s great teams. But that’s no excuse for not making the effort for those four letters.
All I know, except for the Arizona win, this team has been almost unwatchable given its waste of it’s own talent. Some have tried very hard, but most have not. Baffling.
Character
I note that of all the teams from the larger conferences seeded either 1 or 2 in their respective tournaments, only the Bruins failed to make a credible effort. Even Pittsburgh, who was upset in their first game, was in it until the end. And wasn’t fun to see both Washington and Arizona play their hearts out even though both teams were going to the big dance. Very troubling. We shall see which team shows up in the first round. We went from playing a 10 or 11 seed to playing a team at our similar seeding.
Great Analysis & The Lavin Comparison
Personally, I think this is the best piece written on the site this season. Instead of micro-managing every game decision or personnel move, this gets at the bigger picture. Hence, for a very different reason, this is what drove us crazy about Lavin. I got tired of hearing about all the Sweet Sixteen appearances and how we were all spoiled fans from the national media. We didn’t care about that kind of success in the tournament. We wanted our players to play hard, with passion and grow as a team. Unfortunately, Dalis (who I put ALL the blame on) hired an inexperienced coach who should never have had the job. What made the early Howland years great was how the players bought into his system and played hard. In recent years, that hasn’t been the case.
(And let’s go back to playing a strong, competitive schedule that we can be proud of instead of Howland’s Big East primer on how to massage 20 wins out of a weak, home based and almost always play your opponent on a neutral site (preferably in your state). I feel like we’re Syracuse at times with our schedule.)
by rocket rod forever on Mar 13, 2011 9:45 AM PST reply actions
66's analysis fits Honeycutt well
And Honeycutt was the most talented player on the team coming into the year. He has not grown and is not playing the best he can be. He is content to jack up threes too much and go for the circus pass when a normal one would work. He is the biggest liability on defense of the starters.
That it fits one person is troubling, the team’s most talented before the season start is worse.
I don’t think it fits the rest of the team as well, as I think they are closer to their potential and improving. But fitting Honeycutt, the leader in minutes, is very troubling indeed.
OT: does SC make the dance?
I’m hoping they make the NIT and win it, solely so I can laugh when they hang an NIT banner in Galen.
disgustingly
I’m guessing they do. For the life of me, I can’t understand how a 19-14 team who lost to so many terrible RPI teams can even sniff the bubble, but every projection out there has them in. Sure, they beat some impressive teams, but that shouldn’t outweigh how horrible several of their losses were. The talent in the college basketball world has certainly dipped since its most recent peak in 2007-2008. Most of the “bubble” teams will make it in this year because there aren’t that many accomplished teams that are unquestionably in compared to previous years.
Palm doesn't have them in
Definitely agree about the bubble quality, especially given that there are three extra at-large spots this year
Three points...
1. The Pac-10 preseason poll had UCLA finishing 3rd in the final conference standings. We ended up 2nd, and by one game.
2. To read that someone would believe UCLA does not deserve to be in the NCAA tournament is disturbing in view of the vast 68-team field available. This means one does not think that UCLA is one of the top 68 teams. Well, if the NCAA tournament selection committee thinks we’re deserving of an at-large bid, that’s perfectly fine by me.
3. Accordingly to all I’ve read and heard today, UCLA’s season isn’t over. A final assessment can be done after their final game. Before that, any assessment of the entirety of the season is premature. Who knows, maybe we’ll have a great run ala 1980.
It's not the top 68 teams in the tourney
It’s more like the top 40-45, becuase of the number of automatic qualitfiers from smaller conferences.
Even then, I do think we’re in the top 40+. But I agree with ’66 in that we squandered a lot of opportunities, and mostly intangilbe ones, that could have had us solidly in the top 20.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
At least you seem to agree that UCLA deserves to be in the tourney.
So far this season they’ve exceeded my expectations. I thought that when this day would come, they would be a bubble team, and they are not.
There are a lot of awful teams that deserve to be in the tourney this year
Very weak year and an expanded field tends to have that effect.
Not a gratifying 20+ win season
big difference between fighting and clawing your way to a 20+ win season, and sleepwalking to it.
I have no expectation to any great accomplishments in the Big Dance. This team can lose to anybody; and unfortunately the opposite is not as likely.
I hope they prove me wrong.
Great post Class of 66
You outlined perfectly what a lot of us old-timers are feeling.
What particularly irks me is seeing the current Bruins seemingly unable to handle the full-court press that so many teams have thrown at them this season.
I remember our ‘64 & ’65 championship teams using the “revolutionary” full-court press to fluster the bigger Duke and Michigan teams. Coach’s creation is now being used against us….and effectively. Very sad.
by BruinsinceBarnes on Mar 13, 2011 2:43 PM PDT reply actions
I'm not sure
I think it’s really difficult to measure passion, desire, and focus. These are intangible qualities that manifest themselves in many ways. So, I’m going to stay away from judging this team on anything other than what I can see with my own two eyes. I haven’t attended any practices, and I have no idea how much these players actually care about winning. CBH obviously felt that this team was a longshot to win 20 games, and he knows his team better than anyone. To be honest, I think we probably exceeded his expectations. This team was rebuilding this year…new point gaurd, new center. Most teams that have to replace those positions have trouble finding success.
Don’t get me wrong, watching this team has been a hair-pulling experience for me because of the wild ups and downs. But I just don’t know how much can be attributed to lack of heart, or whatever else you want to call it.
Another geezer perspective
In my opinion, the comments in this thread vividly illustrate the difference in generations. 66’s point was all about intangibles. A large portion of the responses tried to evaluate the season usng various statistics, such as minutes played, etc. I think the younger the contributor here, the more likely that person is going to try to measure the season and his or her expectations with numbers. 66’s perpective cannot be measured with numbers, but is it surely an observable phenomenon.
I think the difference is that many of the younger Bruins did not have the privilege of watching teams coached by Coach. We didn’t win all of our games during the time I followed. I remember a lot of heartbreaking losses. I remember a couple of spells of bad play. (Well, actually only one. For some reason, I remember part of a game against Cal at Harmon Gym when the Wicks, Rowe, Patterson team played poorly for about a minute or two until Coach called a time out. I wasn’t in the huddle, but I suspect “Goodness gracious sakes alive” was said more than once.) There was a palpable difference between those teams and this team which really can’t be measured numerically.
I earn my living by writing. I am supposed to be able to articulate estoteric concepts in such a way that judges underestand and embrace my point. Nonetheless, I am stumped here. How’s this. There are qualitative differences between Faust and The Barber of Seville and Carmen, but all are great operas. There are also productions called operas which differ in such a profound way that they really shouldn’t be groupled in the same genre. If I’ve heard of them, it means they’ve been staged (and some at big houses), but they are just not the same, such as The Tempest (the composer (Hoiby) apparently thought “Heck, Verdi did a lot of Shakespeare plays, why not me”) or Wozzeck (which to me sounds like a garbage can being pushed down a flight of stairs).
Or singers. For those of you whose tastes run that way, look at the difference between the winners on American Idle and those who get tossed in the auditions. (I can’t really detect any difference, other than some get described as “Yo, Dog” and some don’t.) For the grown ups, I think the difference between our current team and Coach’s teams are the same as the difference between that girl who ttred to sing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl and Bjoerling or Pavarotti.
I can’t quantify the differences between what I see now and what I saw then. The wins and losses are easily counted, of course. But the “success” using Coach’s definition happens maybe once a year now, versus 95% of the time back then. (Coach had some games which he would not have deemed a “success” but in which we scored the most points.)
That said, I cannot say that this team did not measure up to my expectations, because I had very low expectations coming into the season. The team played pretty much as I thought they would. I think they had one “success” – the last game at Pauley. Maybe there were others that I didn’t see. In terms of Coach’s definition of success, I view this season as a total failure. I don’t know what Coach would have done after the team did not seriously try against Oregon, because he never had that happen. It just didn’t. I remember the game that broke the 88-game winning streak. Our guys played harder that day than ever. I don’t remember more effort being expended. It was just not to be that day, against that team and that guy who went berserk with his scoring. I’m sure Coach counted that as a success, even though it was a loss.
The last analogy is Apollo 13. That mission did not accomplish its mission of a moon landing, but it was a success in terms of the achievement of the mission control guys and the crew and the recovery team and all concerned. Coach would have been proud of them.
Coach would not have been proud of this year’s team, because he would have seen clearly that they did not get the most out of their abilities.
I have said this many times. I really, truly feel sorry for the current students and young alumni. These are your good old days. Steve and I and some of the others get to think about how great it was to see our first undefeated team with our tallest player at 6’5". Well, I won’t go on about that. I’m old enough to be willing to give up some of the plentiful good old days I had and turn them over to you youngsters, but it really wouldn’t work. I’m really sad for you.
End of pontification.
by Fox 71 on Mar 14, 2011 5:54 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
