Interesting Statistical Comparisons of Howland and Lavin
". . . aside from three outstanding years, comprising a smaller and smaller fraction of his UCLA career, Howland's teams have under performed Lavin's. In those three good years he went 97-17 (85.1%), 13-3 in the NCAA tournament. But in the other five and a half years he's 105-76 (58.0%) with just two tournament wins. By comparison, Lavin had a better record for his worst five years 97-61 (61.4%) and won six tournament games. Want to toss out his first year using "Lavin's players"? (You wouldn't want to if he had a good year with them, would you?) Then he's an identical 94-59 (61.4%).
How is this possible?"
Much, much more . . .
4 months ago
PauleyDog
52 comments
8 recs |
Email
PrintComments
forgot to add..
But they show how important perception is to reality. But now, reality is kicking in
Pretty much made the same points
Couple of weeks ago. Inexcusable indeed.
by Nestor on Feb 13, 2012 4:53 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Replace the word "interesting" with "depressing". Or "discouraging". Or something worse.
We have gone 3 years (and looking now at four) without a Sweet Sixteen appearance. Even Lavin didn’t fall that far.
Speaking of Lavin, as we face St John’s this coming weekend, let’s continue to think good thoughts for him as he recovers from prostate cancer and that he can return to the bench for his school soon.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
No it's not
It’s the fans’ fault, and it’s all due to the “pathology and mythology” of UCLA Basketball…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
No it's not
It’s Bruins Nation’s fault. We’re all just so gosh darn negative here.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
I want to know who wrote this
Because it’s pretty damn good. That person deserves a pat on the back.
Interestingly
The last item is “The Eye Test”…hmmm….
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Because I want that person to contribute here
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Using deductive logic obtained through my yoo$cee* trogan degree,
I have determined the purpose of the article to be an argyooment for calling upon almighty Steve Lavin to lead us back to the glory days of sweet sixteen prominence!
Seriously, though, what a great article.
Basically what I conclude from this post is the following:
1) Lavin was not as bad of a coach as I may have thought. But he his character is still questionable in my eyes.
2) Howland is much worse than even I thought than before. He definitely has to be fired. I was right for not looking at his final four runs as some sort of credit deserving of attention.
3) We should not be so sad about non-hire of Nikki Caldwell by Strap-on Dan. Give the guy a little credit here. But the guy must strap-it-on somewhere else and not at UCLA
Is there a Howler willing to respond to this article?
That is an A+ piece of research and writing. With all due respect to the regulars and front-pagers here, it’s the best thing I think I’ve seen. Who wrote this? As gbruin says, we need more from this person.
I would really like to have a Howler take a look at this. This document is the equivalent of Luther’s 95 Theses. It casts into doubt many of the basic premises upon which Howlandism is based. In fact, in my opinion, you cannot read this document and remain a Howler. The Pope asked Thomas More and Erasmus to refute the 95 Theses, and both declined to do so. The refutation was eventually written by Henry VIII, for which he was given the title “Defender of the Faith,” a title still claimed by the English monarch today. Is there a Howler who wants to refute these, and earn a similar title? Henry VIII would have been famous for this task alone. Where is a Howler who will do the same? Truly, a Howler cannot allow this article to remain unrefuted. But who will do so?
if anyone who responds to this article is going to be derided as a 'Howler', what is the point?
to say that “Howland is no better than Lavin, and maybe even worse, if you take out Howland’s 3 best years” is a classic case of cherry-picking statistics to make a particular case – and no better than a Howler saying ‘throw out Howland’s worst 3 years and he is great! We can’t possible let him leave!’
In an article claiming to be dispassionate statistics, and moving away from false perception, there are also curiously leading comments. To say that a ‘good coach’ would win most of their overtime games is totally wrongheaded – a good coach would only be in overtime games when his team and the opponent were an even match of talent, coaching etc, so should generally expect to win only half those games – unless you think the coach coaches his team BETTER in overtime than in the game, in which case you have to question why the coach coaches so poorly the rest of the time. For reference, see pretty much every article ever written about being ‘clutch’ in baseball.
Using ‘performance relative to betting lines’ as any kind of comparative statistic indicating quality is also wildly wrongheaded. Interesting that Howland’s teams have been persistently underrated by Vegas; interesting perhaps that Lavin’s early-season teams were overrated, and late-season teams were properly rated; but this is a comment on oddsmakers and the betting public, not on whether the coaches improved their teams.
And obviously the context – Lavin taking over a recent national championship program, Howland taking over a crater – should be important. To wildly misapply some statistics of my own, Lavin took a program that had finished 16-2 the previous Pac-10 season, and led it in his first 4 years to records of 15-3, 12-6, 12-6, 10-8. Howland took a program that had finished 6-12 the previous Pac-10 season, and led it in his first 4 years to regular season Pac-10 records of 7-11, 11-7, 14-4, 15-3.
There are plenty of good cases against Howland – and in particular, I think that the Ben Howland (+ staff) we have now is damaged goods compared with the early years, and there seems little-to-no prospect he can turn things around. The Dragovich season looks worse and worse as the years go by, and Howland appears to have lost the ability to recruit players that thrive under his system – and does not appear to be able to adapt his philosophy to accommodate other types of players. But to me, the case for sacking Howland is in the terminal nosedive of the program and seeming impossibility of any course correction, not in some false equivocation of Howland’s overall career with Lavin’s overall career. Howland came into UCLA as a former national coach of the year when UCLA was at its lowest ebb for a generation, and backed up his reputation for being able to build up a program – but it then seems that he does not understand how to sustain a program at an elite level, or even a very good level. Lavin lucked into a UCLA job for which he had no qualifications and little aptitude, systematically dissipated the UCLA brand, and provided basically no coaching to his players. Howland’s superiority to Lavin isn’t a ‘false perception’, it is just backed up by a different way of choosing to present the same statistics.
But regardless of my disagreement about this, the reason it seems compelling is that it is consistent with a view that most of us now hold:
BEN HOWLAND CANNOT CONTINUE TO BE COACH OF UCLA BASKETBALL.
I have previously argued that we must fire Guerrero first before considering firing Howland, but the Mora situation suggests that there may be competent coaches out there who can recruit their way into Westwood despite Guerrero’s incompetence.
FIRE DAN GUERRERO NOW.
ARRANGE FOR BEN HOWLAND TO LEAVE BY MUTUAL CONSENT AT THE END OF THE SEASON. (as, despite the fact he cannot continue, I would rather he leave on amicable terms out of respect for some of the good times he gave us, and for making the NBA relevant to Bruin-centric basketball fans again. I like Ben Howland and hope good things for him in the future.)
by VeniceBruin on Feb 15, 2012 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
You make a good point, Venice, sort of
I am not looking for a Howler – a person who supports our Coach no matter what. I am looking for someone who is still willing to argue that Coach Howland is doing a good job and should be retained. I should make full disclosure. I was a Howler coming into the season. In fact, I remember posting something in which I argued that it was not out of the question for us to be undefeated this year. Then things started to fall apart. I assume there are still those who would defend Coach Howland’s performance. I want such a person to convince me I’m wrong. He should start by looking at the stats PauleyDog generated.
sure
my point is only that the case Howland has to answer isn’t whether or not his contribution has been better than Lavin – because it has – but whether he can build sustained excellence in the UCLA program, which it seems he cannot.
The stats PauleyDog generated concerning Howland’s tenure are not the reason we should fire Howland. The pathetic performance in the last 3 years – from recruiting to game management – and the lack of any signs of progress towards sustained excellence, are the reasons Howland must go. If I were trying to defend Howland, rebutting PauleyDog’s statistics would not be where I would start.
My response
to say that "Howland is no better than Lavin, and maybe even worse, if you take out Howland’s 3 best years" is a classic case of cherry-picking statistics to make a particular case
The only point I was making there was: How could someone be so good for three years and so bad for five and a half? The rest of the analysis is based on the entire UCLA career of both.
In an article claiming to be dispassionate statistics, and moving away from false perception, there are also curiously leading comments. To say that a ‘good coach’ would win most of their overtime games is totally wrongheaded – a good coach would only be in overtime games when his team and the opponent were an even match of talent, coaching etc, so should generally expect to win only half those games – unless you think the coach coaches his team BETTER in overtime than in the game, in which case you have to question why the coach coaches so poorly the rest of the time.
This category is similar to the record in close games, which is widely accepted as a good measure of coaching ability. Maybe Howland isn’t good in OT games because he’s used up all his timeouts in regulation and only has the one extra. (In fact, I did an analysis of his timeout use last season and found that they do not help the team in the next couple possessions and actually may hurt the team when he calls one after a made basket. Go HERE to see it.) But you have to go back and read the qualifier for all the categories: “Let’s look at some of the factors people believe make a good or bad coach and how they pertain to the perception of Lavin and Howland:” meaning that some are debatable.
Using ‘performance relative to betting lines’ as any kind of comparative statistic indicating quality is also wildly wrongheaded.
If you believe that point spreads aren’t directly related to the relative strengths of teams, then why aren’t you in Las Vegas getting rich? Every analysis has shown that point spreads are highly correlated with the outcome of games. It is also used here as a measure of expected performance, which would obviously include expectation of fans or bettors. But there just aren’t many ways to easily measure team improvement adjusting for strength of opponent. So how does one explain why Howland’s record in the second half of the conference season is worse than the first?
And obviously the context – Lavin taking over a recent national championship program, Howland taking over a crater – should be important.
The three players most responsible for the championship, E. O’Bannon, Edney and Zidek were long gone when Lavin took over. The remaining players were the ones that lost to Princeton in the first round. Howland taking over for Lavin was one of the points I made: that a coach taking over for a bad coach looks better than one taking over for a good coach.
To wildly misapply some statistics of my own, Lavin took a program that had finished 16-2 the previous Pac-10 season, and led it in his first 4 years to records of 15-3, 12-6, 12-6, 10-8. Howland took a program that had finished 6-12 the previous Pac-10 season, and led it in his first 4 years to regular season Pac-10 records of 7-11, 11-7, 14-4, 15-3..
I don’t see what your point is here. I stated that all W-L records are dependent on strength of schedule, anyway.
Howland’s superiority to Lavin isn’t a ‘false perception’, it is just backed up by a different way of choosing to present the same statistics.
I didn’t “choose” to present them in any particular way. I didn’t in your words, “cherry pick” statistics that favored one or the other. I’m a statistician (PhD) who has followed UCLA basketball a lot longer and closely than most likely anyone here. I just noticed a similarity between Howland’s and Lavin’s numbers in many important categories. I left them open for anyone to interpret as they pleased. (In fact, several people cited one particular category as proof of Howland’s weakness, but Mike Krzyzewski was much worse than both Lavin and Howland there when you look as his numbers.) If someone has other stats to present, I would be happy to see them. But nobody can deny, based on any kind of assessment that Howland hasn’t done a very good job for several years now. However, he’s proven he can win big with the right pIayers. Whether he can get them again is questionable.
any presentation of statistics is a 'choice'
The fact that you do not have an agenda – and I’m happy to take you at your word – doesn’t mean that you may have (inadvertently) chosen statistics that may be misleading, or framed them in a way that is misleading. And by including some statistics but not others – regardless of your disclaimer that some (unspecified number) of the categories may be debatable – you are lending particular credence to the categories that you select. I apologize for using the word ‘cherry-picking’, but some of your language implies that you are trying to make a particular case – or, at least, debunk a particular case (as in when you implicitly accuse people of conveniently choosing to ignore Howland’s first year, when they would include Howland’s first year if that year had been successful)
I don’t find your responses to my points compelling – for example, of course point spreads are related to relative strengths of teams. This is why you would expect win/loss records vs the spread to be 50/50 if Vegas/bettors are rational actors. If you consistently win vs the spread, that doesn’t show you are a good team, it shows you are an underrated team. If you win 45% against the spread in the first half of the season and 50% against the spread in the second half, this does not show you have improved as a team, it shows that you are performing better relative to expectations – which may well be because expectations have been lowered, as Vegas is not in the business of allowing teams to be heavily under- or over-rated, or both of us would be there getting rich…. You say there isn’t a good way of measuring team improvement relative to strength of schedule – but that isn’t a reason for including something that doesn’t measure improvement relative to strength of schedule! In this case, I think your simpler point is much more compelling and damning on its own – you play each team once in the first half and once in the second half, so the SOS should be roughly the same in both, and the simple win/loss records in each are likely to tell a compelling story. Yes, you can’t control for differential improvements of other teams, or injuries/suspensions/etc, but you can hope these things mostly wash out over a large enough sample size.
(as an aside – the only thing that I could imagine that could cause systematic bias would be if the scheduling of home and away games had an odd effect – e.g. when our team is good, we happen to play the best teams in conference on the road in the second half of the season, or something like that; so if some programs are consistently strong, and we consistently play them on the road in the second half, that might have an effect; but this would still likely wash out unless there was some contrived situation (e.g. in good years we kill bad teams at home in the first half of the season, and narrowly beat them on the road in the second half; but in bad years we narrowly beat bad teams at home in the first half, and lose to them on the road in the second half))
Similarly, you argue that Howland’s perception is boosted by taking over for a bad coach, but don’t seem to think that taking over from a bad coach put him at a disadvantage in the strength of the program, relative to what Lavin inherited. I think you may be right (though I am not a professional psychologist) that people want to think Howland is doing a good job partly because Lavin was bad, whereas people were disappointed with Lavin because Harrick was relatively good. But the statistical similarities that you indicate do not control in any way for the state of the program that they inherited. My own stylized cherry-picking of statistics would suggest that Lavin took over a good program and made it bad, while Howland took over a bad program and made it good. Any arguments about their average statistical performance should be put in the context of what they started with. If you like, we can throw out the first two years for both coaches – after all, it’s when you have your own sophomores in the program that you are starting to really own things [note: this is a plausible but admittedly totally unverified statement]. Without running it myself, it looks like this would have the effect of lowering Lavin’s performance relative to Howland.
I am also a PhD in a quantitative field and I am totally and utterly on board with you when you say:
But nobody can deny, based on any kind of assessment that Howland hasn’t done a very good job for several years now.
I'll accept the credit
Yeah. I wrote it. Only took me 11 months. (But less work than my doctoral dissertation.) This and “Ben Howland Then and Now” are some of my best efforts, so I posted them here.
I’d be happy to write more for your web site. How much do you pay?
Excellent piece.
I think the writers here all do so on their own time.
I thought it was $5.00 per comment
This is how I was financing my retirement. I’m still waiting for the first check, of course, but I thought it would be a pretty nice one, probably in five figures. Shoot. Now I have to start practicing “Welcome to Walmart” again.
Hmm
The scale can be something like?
$10.00 per fanshot
$20.00 per recommend fanshot
$25.00 per fanpost
$50.00 per recommended fanpost
Let’s not even get started with frontpage posts. That could get into Chianti Dan salary range.
For long term members
We can throw in wine trips to Naps Valley.
by Nestor on Feb 14, 2012 3:50 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
If that is the case then I have made some quick money here.
I’ll be sending my address shortly. I prefer bills to checks, not a fan of a papertrail.
"I have one word for you...Be careful."
-Jose Guillen
Along with the groceries
Down goes La Verne!
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
I'll throw in my bonus
and my stock options.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I think this article should be named 'the final nail in Howlands coffin.'
It is that compelling.
The numbers when UCLA was favored by 5, 8 and 10 points were enough; but when he used numbers when UCLA was the underdog, well it was a lot like whipping a dead horse. Don’t even get me started on the numbers versus USC.
Sorry Ben. The win against Gonzaga was great, but I’m going to keep looking. Thanks.
Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi
Very well done
I have been on the Internet too long to take much of anything at face value.
It’s shocking, I know, but people lie and twist the truth and more to push their viewpoint.
However, if the numbers end up checking out, this excellent write up should be the front page on BN, front page on the Daily Bruin — heck even an op ed article for the LA Times.
Well the fanshot was frontpaged
We are always happy to frontpage well thought out arguments with supporting facts.
100% guaranteed
All my numbers are 100% guaranteed. (You can find almost all of the raw data on StatSheet.com.) The reason you can trust this is that I have no agenda. It’s all based on my observation that although most people consider Lavin a “bad” coach and Howland a “good” coach, you can’t really tell the difference based on most of the statistics that one would consider when evaluating a coaching job. So you can use the results to back up whatever argument you want to make: Lavin is as good as Howland; Howland is as bad as Lavin; they both suck; etc.
My own personal opinion is that Howland is a good coach who made so many disasterous personnel decisions, he put his job in jeopardy and although Lavin had a lot about him to dislike, his numbers weren’t that bad.
Late to the dance per usual..
..but I stumbled across this excellent analysis. One wonders if these stats mightn’t be actually useful for CBH? You know, giving him some new perspective on his coaching efforts.
If not Ben, then who might be a candidate to coach?
Exit question: what’s a Howler?
I assume it is a denier; a devotee of CBH?
funny we don't see enough people defending our AD to warrant a moniker
by VeniceBruin on Feb 16, 2012 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
I think there are few of them there
Not a coincidence that you see attacks on this community at other places. Not a lot but they show up and often the timing of them is kind of funny.
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.
