Malcolm Lee, Ben Howland and the UCLA Factor
by Achilles on Jun 7, 2011 6:00 AM PDT
in Basketball
Email
Print
Yesterday, DCBruins had a good post about Malcolm Lee. Picking up from his post, the other day I was watching the NBA draft camp, basically an organized tryout in front of NBA scouts. When they started talking about Malcolm Lee, I hit the record button, curious about what they might be saying about him.
I'm glad I did. I'm glad because the discussion strayed a bit from Lee to a discussion of UCLA basketball and Ben Howland. This is how it went.
The commentators were Tom Penn, Chad Ford, Len Elmore and Fran Frischilla. Ford covers the NBA for ESPN. Fraschilla is the former Manhattan coach turned college basketball analyst. Elmore played in the NBA and now does games for ESPN - I think he was an agent at one time. Tom Penn works for ESPN now, but he was formerly the assistant GM with the Portland Trail Blazers under Kevin Pritchard. There was one other guy, but I didn't recognize him and he didn't speak in this segment anyway.
Penn started the conversation by noting that Ford had Lee had at the back end of the first round when last season started, but then there was "another disappointing year by UCLA standards."
"Well, one thing is he's an elite defender, and he can guard both positions in the back court," Ford responded. "And given his size that's intriguing for NBA teams.
"Then there's the UCLA factor."
Ahhh ... the UCLA factor ... that's what got my attention.
Ford continued:
"A lot of these UCLA point guards did not look like great NBA prospects necessarily to NBA scouts in Ben Howland's system. They get into the league whether it was Jrue Holiday, whether it was Russell Westbrook, Darren Collison (Arron Afflalo) - they have all produced at a big time level."
Obviously Ford knows Afflalo is not a point guard, so mid-sentence he expanded his thoughts to include UCLA players. At this point they were showing some highlights of Lee shooting the ball, so it was tough to tell who spoke next. It sounded like Elmore:
"And that's not a knock on Ben Howland it's not a criticism that these guys aren't getting coached well at UCLA. It's just that the system he runs does not highlight some of the things that NBA teams really value in these guys and when they get in the NBA system they're well coached, they've been well trained, they've been patient and suddenly they blossom in the NBA.
"Lest anyone use that as recruiting ammunition against Ben Howland - the important thing is that these guys are fundamentally sound, and that's what Ben teaches and it allows you to adjust to this type of game (i.e. the NBA game), even though that system (UCLA's) isn't the pro style system, because they're mastering the fundamentals they can make that adjustment and teams find it easy to build upon that and the guys that you mention in the league are prime examples of that.
Fraschilla then noted some weaknesses in Lee's game, particularly his shooting. I can't say his observations were unfair. He also pointed out that just because Holiday and Westbrook have done well in the NBA, it doesn't follow that every UCLA guard will do well in the NBA. (It made me laugh because he said "Just because Carson Palmer was a successful NBA quarterback, it doesn't mean Matt Leinart was going to be a great NBA point guard. He apparently doesn't realize that Palmer and Leinart both suck, though in fairness to Fran, Leinart sucks out loud while Palmer just sort of sucks. Still, point taken.) He also said just because Lee had looked good in a few weeks of tryouts, it didn't radically change what scouts think of him.
Then Penn said:
"It never radically changes who they are in four or five weeks, but it establishes a pattern of improvement. It shows a willingness to work and players can and do evolve
"Going back to Chad's point about UCLA guards, they're not all created equal. (But) there is a subtle -- (maybe a) not so subtle -- similarity that you end up having between these players and it increases the likelihood of success (in the NBA) potentially in your own mind and when you're selling these things internally."
Penn's point here is that while Lee may not be Westbrook or Afflalo, he still has the same fundamental foundation learned at UCLA. And he possesses the same willingness to work and improve. And when a scout or GM needs to justify his selection to his coach or owner, he can point to those similarities.
Ford then chimed in with a very interesting point:
"He was a blue chip prospect who plays in summer camps and looks more like an NBA prospect.
"There's a third factor that a lot of teams don't talk about. Their players go in the summer and they play with these college kids (i.e. in the Wooden Center games that take place every summer involving UCLA players and NBA players who live in Los Angeles in the off-season) and these players will come back and report to their general managers and their scouts who they think can play and I'm telling you that a number of NBA players have come back and said Malcolm Lee is a big time prospect and a lot of teams have told us that plays a role because their players are playing with him in the summer and reporting back."
Summarizing Ford's last point, you've got guys from the pros playing with our guys in the Wooden Center and they know who can play and who can't. I believe it, too. NBA players may not be scouts, but they can tell who's got game and who can't. And, if Ford's sources are correct, then NBA scouts are telling their team's scouts and GMs that Lee can play.
So, what to make of all of this:
Part of the conversation was about Lee specifically. He's looked good in the workouts and the tryouts and apparently he's made an impression on a few NBA players.
But the larger point is about Howland and Howland's style. And, oddly, it justifies some of the negative things we've heard rumors about but it also refutes those negatives and makes them a positive.
See, on one hand, the comments about Howland's system not being an NBA system and not highlighting the NBA strengths on his players might be true. When we hear a rumor that a Holiday or even an Afflalo (or someone close to them) is saying that Howland didn't feature show off their skills properly, there might be something to it. We don't play an NBA system. For the record, remember when they used to say the only person who could hold Michael Jordan under 20 points? and the answer was "Dean Smith." That's because Smith didn't play an NBA system either -- but Smith players seemed to have long productive NBA careers, even those not as talented or skilled as Jordan.
Howland might not be showing off his players NBA skills, but he's instilling in them a level of fundamentals that serves them well on the next level. Their college highlight reels might lack plays that translate to NBA systems, but scouts and GMS realize that there is an underlying set of fundamentals - coupled with the work ethic it takes to play with Howland - that makes them interested in UCLA players and gives them confidence in drafting them.
Fraschilla is right. Not all UCLA players are the same. Westbrook it just better than Collison. Holiday is just better than Farmar. That's mostly DNA and no college coach can alter your DNA. But a college coach can instill a set of necessary fundamentals that give a coach in the NBA a foundation to build on.
Go Bruins
30 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great Post
So if you are an elite recruit would you rather hurt your scoring average a bit and be better prepared for the NBA? The NBA is a defensive league now more. Just look at the Heat. They are winning because their superstars play defense hard and their role players are defenders first, for the most part.
And if you are recruiting against UCLA, how do you beat an “open gym” where the pros come to practice in the summer? As a kid in college I loved watching the open gym and it was amazing to see not just the Laker players but other pros come in and practice against our Bruins. And as amazing as it is to watch, it would be more amazing to actually play in such a game, even if it is just a summer warm up.
it's always good to hear your coach and players praised.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Mostly nice stuff
Three of the four had nice things to say, as long as you’re willing to get through the negative tone created by Chad Ford’s initial inaccurate and incomplete view of UCLA point guards who have flourished in the NBA.
Ford always ignores the concept of development after college. Collison was showcased in college. Holiday and Westbrook, on e other hand, each had one year as a starter, and not in the positioin they play in the pros due to that same Collison dude (who was held back so much he was a 3-time all Pac 10 player and in two of thise years the Pac 10 had the most talent it has ever had). The fact is at Westbrook and Holiday had high ceilings, performed well and often enough to be picked 4th and 17th, and have continued to work and grow as players.
I’m sick of the narrative being spunabout players being held back. More and more, it’s a narrative that
Continuing
It’s a narrative at more and more seems to be spun by Ford and less and less by others. Let’s hope that the trend continues to marginalize the unfair and inaccurate spin job of Chad Ford.
One correction (I think)
My understanding is that none of those games where pros and celebrities come to play pick-up ball actually happen at the Wooden Center. They occur across the way at the Student Activities Center (the old men’s gym).
Well
Some of them do happen in Wooden, but for the most part you’re correct. The majority of them are in SAC
by lil eg not cs on Jun 7, 2011 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I think Arron Afflalo is the best example of all this
Compared to almost all the other UCLA guards mentioned, he probably had the lowest ceiling. Not as athletic; projected to be good at a lot of facets of the NBA game, but not great at anything. Very good fundamental player. He had a lot of intangibles—tireless worker, high character, leadership, stamina, clutch etc.
I forget what happened exactly, but when the Detroit Pistons drafted him, the story was that they originally intended to draft a PG, specifically either Aaron Brooks or Gabe Pruitt. Once Aaron Brooks was off the board (picked up by the Rockets right before the Pistons had their selection). They started to look at Gabe Pruitt and a number of other prospects, but they had only a few minutes before they had to make their selection. When Arron Afflao was mentioned, they did know about his defensive abilities and his high character….and that’s when Chauncey Billups came in. He personally vouched for Afflalo, recounting stories of Billups vs. Afflalo—i.e., how tough Afflalo was, never backed down, played hard even in pick-up games—at UCLA’s Men’s gym and essentially told Joe Dumars to draft him. The rest is history.
Bilas has essentially said the same in the past
I hope all the AAU guys in LA are taking notes. Ben Howland can coach, and he is hardly holding players back. Great coaching job by Ben.
Apparently, learning fundamentals isn’t cool to some of these high flying recruits. I believe in Coach Howland’s system, as long as you get the players to buy into it.
Exactly. CBH is turning these guys into legitimate NBA players.
While other coaches may rely on their players god given talents, CBH teaches strong fundamentals and prepares his players to succeed. Not only have his players gone on to exceed their NBA career paths, they have flourished in the NBA for the most part. They simply come more prepared to succeed than most other players.
by AllHailMightyBruins on Jun 7, 2011 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions
With Lee, I see a player who worked hard to built up a good foundation under Howland
Honeycutt, not so much.
It will be interesting see what kind of success these two have.
I think the biggest takeaway from this is twofold:
First, whether or not Ben Howland is “holding players back” is irrelevant, as he is holding players back for what is essentially a different sport; NBA basketball and college basketball are vastly different, and with the added protections to superstars and emphasis on exciting offense and no defense, almost all talented basketball players in college can succeed in this style. Ben has had several that flourished, such as Jrue, Russell, and DC. Additionally, all Ben’s players can play defense, making them better in the NBA, as it’s treated as an additional skill, not one that everyone possesses (see: Monta Ellis, Steve Nash, Brandon Jennings, Johnny Flynn). Finally, they have excellent fundamentals, allowing them to play in any coaching scenario. Essentially, these traits accent their already high level of basketball skill. This makes the argument that Ben is holding his players back correct, but largely irrelevant.
Secondly, this is something i’m not sure recruits will get/care about. Many recruits come to UCLA to get into the NBA. The successes we’ve seen in recent years contain good players who love their schools (and know they’ll be in the association someday) sticking around. We need to keep more of these guys on board. Smith was a good start, as despite claims to the contrary, he could have gone pro this year. Reeves is also a good start, though I have my doubts about his draft prospects for the coming year. My hope is that he will stick around to open Pauley. We have the added benefit of the Wear twins, who like most transfers will not make the jump early . Bonus. If Ben can continue his recruiting and improve player retention, we’ll be back on top in no time.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Correllary to your second takeaway and a Third takeaway (though somewhat implicit)
Whether recruits care or not (they should) UCLA is a special place to high your talent to the NBA. The open b-ball, the TV games and the general profile add to your chances of being seen and appreciated by NBA talent.
The Third Takeaway goes back to an old debate here at BN: is CBH bad at holding on to marginal 1st round talent that would probably benefit by staying longer. The analysis shows there is another whole thread of evaluation going on at UCLA — somewhat uniquely — beyond the games etc. Luc, Jrue, Tyler and Malcolm all left despite seeming logic against their departure. It may be because of the feedback they got at during the open games and the discussion the scouts had with them about that alternative method of evaluation.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Jun 7, 2011 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
They're always going to get NBA-centric advice
I just don’t see the logic in blaming Howland for his players leaving and finding success in the NBA. I struggle to find a single player who played for Howland and was drafted who has met expectations. Some might say Jordan Farmar, but quite frankly, he was never expected to be anything huge, and his “future point guard of LA” projection was overly optimistic at best.
That said, the players that have overachieved are manifold. Love was highly underrated, even by some (shortsighted) UCLA fans. Jrue was knocked constantly for his decision, yet is leading his own team, and well I might add, Afflalo was something of an afterthought 1st round pick, yet is thriving in his niche, Holins has surprised everyone with his play, Luc came out of nowhere to become one of the best defenders in the NBA, Westbrook was considered a bad pick at the time, and far too high, yet has played at an All-star level. All of these are players that Ben has helped to reach these extreme heights, yet all could have stayed for one reason or another (except Hollins), but it was their choice to leave. Saying Ben “can’t retain talent” is equivalent to saying “That guy can’t train those cats very well.” The damn things will leave when they please, and the best you can do is coach them well and try to win while they’re there. Wrong or right, it’s not in Ben’s power to retain players magically. So many factors, from agents, family members, friends, scouts, hangers-on, all influence players.
Finally, if you look at the places that are retaining players, you notice several things. First, they’re in locations with no other major sports around (Durham/Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Lexington, Kentucky; Storrs, Connecticut), thus making Basketball, specifically college basketball, THE thing to do, and the sport to worship in that area. Staying in school means another year as king of those campuses. These kids have a guaranteed future in the NBA, and literally the only risk is injury, which we’ve already seen with Kyrie Irving, is minimal. Now look at LA: THE thing in town is the Lakers, followed by other professional sports, than U$C football, then UCLA basketball. That’s pretty low, and these kids get to hear about the sweet digs of Laker players, their cars, their life, how cool the Staples center is, etc etc etc. It goes on and on. All of the kids from all over the country want this, but its farther removed when you’re in Storrs, Connecticut, not jammed in your face on TV and by students everywhere you look. That’s what Ben has to compete with, and I’m surprised he’s had the success he’s had. It’s a testament to him as a coach.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
I still don't see the Laker connection
Elite players with NBA futures will be tempted regardless of their location.
They are all tempted, but to different degrees.
In LA, NBA players are the $#it. They are what every kid going to school in LA, or Southern California wants to be. They see Lakers winning championships, they see Laker jerseys everywhere (and are smart enough to know the dollar signs that those imply), and they all want to be the next phenom. It’s also relevant because some kids are coming up from lower income areas. Living a lower income, more rural childhood is different from living an inner city, low income childhood. Kids in the latter want to break out, to get noticed, to be the next Kobe, the next LeBron, the next Dwight. Yes kids around the US all will be tempted, but in Durham, NC, the bright lights of the NBA are a long ways away. Charlotte doesn’t have a team anymore. You don’t see jerseys every time you go to your local 7-11. College life is more remote, and the money will always be there for them. For kids in LA, it’s different. I suppose, as before on this issue, we’ll agree to disagree.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Sorry, but no
The world is shrinking. Your argument would make sense in a world without Facebook, Twitter, 8 channels of ESPN, and state hopping AAU teams. But that’s not the world we live in.
What percent of people growing up in LA want to be movie stars and what percentage of people in Raliegh, NC want the same thing? Even in a rapidly shrinking world, real life proximity plays a big roll in people’s view of the world, their life plans and their opinions of “normal”, especially impressionable teens and young adults.
Non-Sequitur
The issue is not whether proximity makes kids want to be a certain thing, it’s whether an already self selected sample of elite players/NBA prospects is disproportionately tempted by the NBA due to proximity. That you factor in upbringing highlights the flaw in your logic, because then kids that grow up in LA but go elsewhere for college should be equally tempted as the kids that stay, which runs counter to what Oswego is trying to illustrate.
According to what you say, the logical result would be a higher pool of elite/NBA caliber talent in LA as opposed to NC, which has no bearing on whether that same talent is more or less likely to jump to the NBA early due to location.
I think the proximity argument has merit
but in a different way. Some cities are college sports-centric, others revolve around pro sports. I think that a kid who grows up in a true college town where college athletes are worshiped is more likely to stick around for an extra year or so than a kid who grows up in a pro sports leaning city.
I know that growing up in the Fresno area, where Fresno State sports overshadows the pros, I followed the college game more than the big boys and maintain that allegiance to this day.
I wonder if the reason CBH’s players have met or exceeded NBA expectations were due, in part, to the fact that CBH’s style of play tempered expectations somewhat. It’s just a thought, and I have no data supporting a theory that any players draft stock was actually hindered, but the thought popped into my head when reading your post.
by AllHailMightyBruins on Jun 7, 2011 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I think UCLA play HELPED their draft status more than anything else
My rough estimate
The following players were helped by their time at UCLA IMHO:
*RW UCLA increased his value a lot (After HS no one thought of him as an NBA player, let alone lottery pick)
*AA increased value. Being the main man on the second Final Four team was a huge plus for him. He explored the market after his sophomore year and it was not looking good. Junior Year first round
*JF being the star of a surprising final four team is always good and despite not being a great athlete was a 1st Round Pick
*LRMAM. I am not sure a guy who couldn’t shoot outside 15 feet without great size and athletic ability gets drafted. Starting on three straight final four teams helped him immensely.
*DC was a quick but short bad shooter his freshman year with no hope for the NBA. By his senior year he was a 3 point marksmen that made up for his slight frame
*RH Always had the raw athletic ability but it was not untl the Tourney his senior year that he showed he was tough enough to play inside with NBA level bigs.
Marginal Increase or none
*Kevin Love was all everything in High School
*Jrue Holiday. The basketball scouts loved him. He learned D at UCLA but he would have been a high pick if he could have come straight out of high school
Even Holiday and Love learned things at UCLA. I am just saying they did not enhance their draft status from their time at UCLA.
I do not really see
how you can characterize Luc as not having “great athletic ability”. Luc is hands down one of the best athletes Howland has ever coached, and one of the best I’ve ever seen.
Kevin Love significantly improved his conditioning under Howland. This combined with his strong showing in the tournament and his draft combine work greatly impressed scouts above his projections of late lottery throughout the yearl.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
There was some confusion early in the season
Whether Love was getting benched late in games because of conditioning or because his defense wasn’t up to speed yet. I don’t really know which one is true, but it seems like a player with a high basketball IQ like KLove would probably pick up defense faster than he’d be able to improve his conditioning. Could have been a combination of both.
That is a good point as well.
I think it could also have been as a motivational tool, sadly forgotten in the Voldemortovich years. I think I recall Ben bringing him off the bench for some reason, but that could just be a faulty memory.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Love Luc but
He was not even the best athlete in his class. PAA was the better athlete and higher rated coming in. When I think “great” athlete I think RW or RH (RH was a great high jumper). Luc was good but not great. What made him, and what continues to make him, is all the other things that don’t show up on a stat sheet.
I also think if he played for OSU or some other “bad” PAC 10 team, he would not be playing in the NBA now.
I will agree on Love, as I would not argue with on someone from Oswego.
by DCBruins on Jun 7, 2011 5:33 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I guess I have to disagree
on your definition of “athlete”. I remember CBH’s story of seeing Luc playing in a gym for 2.5 hours in 120 degree heat in Florida, or something similar. I highly doubt any of our players on that team could do the same, including PAA. Vertical leap I consider “explosiveness”. Athlete to me simply means quickness (Luc had more), strenght, body control, and stamina.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
I didn't mean draft stock, but expectations. I confused the point and interchanged the terms, but I didn't mean draft stock.
I’ve been generally surprised by the success of CBH’s players. My post was a direct response to Oswego’s point that CBH’s have met expectations. I agree, and actually believe that they’ve exceeded my own expectations. It makes me wonder if my expectations were artificially low due to CBH’s style of play.
by AllHailMightyBruins on Jun 7, 2011 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I think NBA exposure is key to why Bruins leave early
However, that exposure is closer to home than the Lakers. In fact, it is home and it’s the Men’s Gym. Every summer, the elite of the NBA show up to play pick up games. From what I hear, this doesn’t happen at other schools. Not at Duke. Not at North Carolina. Guess who’s playing along with them, our Bruin team. Our players get first hand experience playing with NBA players. I am pretty sure that after playing a couple of summers in the Men’s Gym, LRAM and AA had a pretty good idea that they had what it took to play in the NBA. In addition to playing with them, our Bruins are probably hearing stories that make jumping to the NBA very tempting. This kind of NBA exposure doesn’t happen at other schools.
by Gen2Bruin1987 on Jun 7, 2011 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
This makes way more sense to me than the Lakers angle
Our players obviously play with these NBA guys in the summers, and if they perceive that the difference in talent between them isn’t that significant, I can see that influencing their decision as to whether they are “ready” or not.
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.
