Old kryptonite -- big teams. This year's kryptonite?

by Meriones on Mar 10, 2008 1:15 PM PDT Comment 40 comments

"Spread" offense teams.

I'm serious.

In 2006 and 2007, we lost to Florida for two simple reasons -- (1) they had more bigs, and better bigs, than we had, and (2) we couldn't get those bigs off the court.

In 2006, we had the suddenly-emerging Ryan Hollins who could finish anywhere within 5' of the rim -- on or above the floor -- with his reach and quickness. Hollins gave a solid effort during that game, but, without reliable post moves, could not put Noah and Horford on the bench with foul trouble. Meanwhile, without bigs who could play them straight-up, Horford and Noah could cut, catch, and score on us at will.

In 2007, the same occurred, except LMR, while stronger than Hollins, and LMRAM, even with another year of experience, simply could not get the Gator bigs to burn energy and fouls on the D end, resulting in another premature exit for our guys.

Fast forward to now, where 2008 Pac-10 POY KLove is the closest thing L.A. has seen to early-2000s-level Shaq: a big-man who commands double teams and has the mass, strength, and moves to score through and in spite of fouls -- whether on 3-point plays or 2-shot fouls.

Add that to the always versatile LMRAM at the 4 and his growing slash and backdoor cut game (just not his outside spot-ups, ugh), the energy-drink games of AA2 and LMR off the bench, and we are better-equipped to handle the double-big style attack. Look at KLove's foul-drawing work against BLo Stanford in Game 1, and the same agaisnt RLo in Game 2, OT be damned.

Now? Well, we have a new problem, and it's one that football fans should know well -- the spread offense.

The teams that have hit us hardest this year have shared one common trait -- freakish perimeter speed and athleticism.

The teams that have been our toughest matchups have been the ones with the athletes and speedsters -- or one nightmarishly fast one -- who can break our guys down off the dribble and create, slash, or dish and catch us off-balance.

Texas with D.J. Augustin.

U$C with Davon Jefferson.

Cal with more slams than a Wack-a-Mole game at Chuck E. Cheese.

OK, that last one may have been a stretch, but come on -- whether it was from our own post-Cardinal fatigue or whatever, we let a LOT of perimeter players get inside the perimeter.

Those forays into the lane came from either DC or RW or JS getting beat by a series of screens and shoves, or our bigs not sliding over and cutting off the lane.

I've already commented on our perimeter concerns earlier in the year, but I think it bears continued examination...

...along with some thoughts on how to correct/ safeguard against it:

(1) Continued PG pressure.

As has been said before, by CBH and others, the entire defensive gameplan starts with DC. He is not only a one-man press breaker, but he's a one-man press, with spider-like arms and sprinter's speed on recovery (Thank you, Ma and Pa Collison!). Of course, both DC AND our newly-awarded Pac-10 DPOY RW are capable of disrupting opposing offensive sets just by challenging the PG right at the halfcourt line. Keep forcing the other team to start running their offense at 20-21 seconds left on the shot clock, instead of at the 25-26 mark, and it catches up to them.

(2) Renewed rebounding.

Stanford outrebounded us by 3 at our place. Cal, without Hardin, was only outboarded by 5. On a team with talented/ tested bigs like KLove, LMRAM, AA2, LMR, and inconsistent outside shooting from our Beloved Perimeter Trinity of the Father (DC), the Son (RW), and the Holy Shipp(!) (JS), rebounding not only gives us putback points (points which saved us against Cal in the closing minute) but leads to transition points -- points which, from here on out, are at a premium for us. As Pat Riley once said, no rebounds, no rings.

(3) Continued big-man hedging.

I think that I shall never see, a poem more lovely than a guard getting thumped against Mata's knee. Although we risk having our bigs out of position, a key part of our defensive philosophy, right up there with tight man D and doubling the post, is a big-man hedging on screen and rolls. I realize KLove can't do that all the time without being left on an island and the basket unprotected, but I would love to see more of AA2 in the game to do this against fast guards, and Keefe getting more time to do this, too. With 5 guys capable of rotating at the 4 and 5, I don't want us leaving fouls on the bench. If we can make it harder and harder for the opposing point guards to run screen and roll by having a 6-8, 235-lb or heavier guy force them back 5-7 feet every time, then let's do it. In particular, AA2 is probably the fastest big on the team behind LMRAM, so even if it occasionally results in a ticky-tack foul, I want his energy used up out there to help conserve fuel for our woefully short backcourt rotation.

If we can't maintain a full 40 minutes of perimeter pressure with out backcourt stalwarts, the disrupting force has to come elsewhere. One of our biggest strengths is, well, our strength. Let's use the strength where most teams would least expect it.

OK, enough from me. Feedback is welcome.

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.

0 recs | Comment 40 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Agree, M

It's point #1 and our thin backcourt that worries me most. Wish we had another body or two who could fill in just a few minutes of tough CBH-like tenacious D (not the band) to give DC and RW a bit of a rest, so they can keep that perimeter pressure on full bore for the whole game. I worry about those 2, esp DC, playing that D for essentially the entire game and having enough left over for offense and down the stretch.

greg in denver

by gbruin on Mar 10, 2008 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The Backcourt

I too am a (little) bit worried about how thin our backcourt is, essentially rotating DC, RW, and JS for the entire 40 minutes, with a smattering of Dragovic and Stanback every now and then (I'm sure those two will only be used in extreme emergencies or extreme blowouts during the tourney).

The counter to this concern is that these players are in superb physical condition, you never see them huffing at the end of games, or pulling on their shorts. Especially DC, I swear when he went to the line at the end of the Stanford game, it didn't even look like he was sweating! And most times, backcourt players start to get in foul trouble when they get tired and start reaching instead of using their feet on defense.

Also, IMO, an advantage that doesn't get brought up that much is that the Pac-10 teams play a Thursday-Saturday schedule (with a few Sunday games thrown in), so our players are used to the quick turnaround in the tourney.

All in all, if we can shake off the slow starts, I think we're very well positioned for a 12th banner to hang in the rafters of the Mecca of College Basketball.

by Herschy on Mar 10, 2008 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A real question

Why is it that we get "journalists" like Doh! and Puking and the like, but we never see any analysis and writing like this? This sort of stuff is NEVER in the fishwrap. (I don't read the fishwrap and haven't for more than three decades, but if stuff like this had been in there, it would have been called to my attention by someone.)

And it isn't just the analysis. Some of the more imaginative writers try to use figures of speech, but the fishwrap hasn't seen "Cal with more slams than a Wack-a-Mole game at Chuck E. Cheese" since the departure of the great Jim Murray to the press room in the sky. (Yes, M, I am comparing you to Murray, because the comparison is warranted.)

Instead, we get idiots like Doh!, whose every factual assertion must be checked closely because of his habitual factual errors, and whose opinions are generally calculated to just be controversial. ("The only woman homlier than Heidi Klum is Halle Berry. And I mean it. They are both ugly! Yeah, I said it. And I wouldn't date either one of them if they begged me. So shut up, and let me leave. I have to go play Dungeons and Dragons.")

by Fox 71 on Mar 10, 2008 1:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

'scuse me while I whip this out..

Meriones,

Let me add my sentiments to what Fox said; Excellent analysis and Wolfean imagery; up there with Electric Kool-Aid Acid test, The Pumphouse Gang, Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, and his other works.

To answer Fox's comments: firstly, money; they don't pay these stiffs a lot of dough. Secondly, the typical beat writer has to earn his or her place by doing the equivalent of covering strip mall openings and puff pieces on some semi-pro horse shoe toss league. So, when they finally pin on their rank, they are so steeped in the desultory, unambitious mentality that pervades the sports desk at whatever 'wrap they work for they couldn't string a clever sentence together if you threatened them. They are just marking time, downing Jack and schmoozing all of the pro organizations or senior writers, their creativity and freshness having leaked out onto the floor years ago. Precious few retain their keen insight and wordsmith skills when they hit their beat assignment.

Also, in fairness, these sluggards are paid to do this which means they must meet deadlines over and over again. You want to end up hating something, try doing it for a living for uncreative management. (I know, I have been writing C/C++ for years and only enjoy it when I can do my own work. Why do you think open source software is so good?)

..it's why Meriones, Nestor, you, SJH, and the countless of others on this site are head and shoulders above those professional hacks.

If I want Bruin sports broken down and reported with a sparkle, I'm here.

The OCR or LAT? Let my dog crap on it!

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Mar 10, 2008 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Judging by past comments

I don't think your C/C++ analogy is going to help Fox out any :)

by Tydides on Mar 10, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too kind, whp.

Glad you found the piece worthwhile. Positive feedback is always well-appreciated. Thanks.

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Mar 10, 2008 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fox 71 -- I am humbled.

I would never even DARE to compare myself to a giant like Jim Murray, but the fact that you did so is one of the kindest compliments I have ever heard, whether online or in the non-virtual world.

Thank you very much for the truly undeserved hyperbole. The reading and appreciation of my writing by others on this board is already praise enough for me.

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Mar 10, 2008 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bench players

Awesome post. As a Bruin on the east coast who sees most games on Bruinsnation and telemachus's site, can someone, either in a post or answer below, provide a breakdown re each bench player, how they were/are expected to contribute, and how they have been contributing? That way I know what to yell at the screen when I see them in games during the Big Dance. Thanks.

Vaya con dios.

by boston bruin on Mar 10, 2008 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Keefe and Aboya

These are our two bench players that get the most minutes in games.

Aboya - speedy, intense (to a fault) defender. The man never seems to be low on energy. As the poster of the article above notes, he is the fastest of our bigs and runs out quick to cut off the route of opposing guards on the hedge.

At the beginning of the season Howland said he trusted Aboya from 17 feet and in as far as shooting. Aboya has shown that in the last couple of games. In addition, he hit one three pointer from the top of the key this year. Most of his points come from dunks or put backs, but he will sometimes step out for a 15 footer.

Fouls - our good friend Alfre, future president of Cameroon, is not gentle. Sometimes he appears out of control, or at least that seems to be the way refs treat him. It is a rare feat when he is able to get through 5 minutes of play without a foul being called from either an illegal/moving pick to a push.

Keefe - Take away the dunks, add a three pointer and a knack for rebounds, and you have James Keefe.

In some ways it is rather remarkable the way Aboya and Keefe are similar.

Both thrive on hustle and effort, both get called for similar fouls, and both shoot from the outside (Keefe much more, however).

I expect Keefe to have a much more developed offensive game next year, but this year he gets put backs and an occasional shot from downtown. He is voracious on the boards, and is better than Aboya at getting into position, but sometimes has to cheat to get there. He gets called for a lot of pushing fouls on the blocks.

by woodenwannabe on Mar 10, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keefe

was reported to have made monstrous strides in his game over the summer. Then he had to have surgery and he was sidelined. I was really looking forward to seeing James play this year and was really disappointed when he had to redshirt. There's always next year for James to show us what he's got. I think he has quite a bit of potential. If he became a Luc type of player (with a shot and without a drive) I wouldn't be at all displeased.

by Tydides on Mar 10, 2008 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget Lorenzo

Lorenzo Mata-Real is our back-up center and he also plays some power forward. He and Alfred are probably the two toughest interior defenders. I love the way LMR hedges out on top on the pick & roll, he is so disruptive, often forcing the opposing ballhandler all the way to midcourt. LMR and AA2 lead the team in charges taken, and LMR is also the best shot blocker on the team. While his offensive skills are limited, he has developed a nice little jump hook with either hand. Lorenzo's development from his freshman year to now has been awesome, and I really hate seeing him go. I hope an NBA team gives him a chance to audition.

by Herschy on Mar 10, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for bringing up LMR. more bball in future?

So funny, he started for so long, I forgot that he comes off the bench now.

Do you guys think there's any way that more basketball waits in the future of LMR?

by woodenwannabe on Mar 10, 2008 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LMR

I think you forgot that Lorenzo is a bench player as well. UCLA has very good depth inside, but in the back-court JS/DC/RW have been playing every minute lately. If one of those three is either injured or in foul trouble, I think Howland is much more likely to go big than to bring in anyone not named Keefe/LMR/Aboya.

by cabz on Mar 10, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cheers

Following the team since '93 I knew about LMR and AA2 - thanks for the info about Keefe, I saw him last year in the tourney v. Kansas, I think. Would anyone else make an appearance?

Vaya con dios.

by boston bruin on Mar 10, 2008 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

PAC-10 Player of the Year goes to...

Kevin Love.

It was just announced that Kevin Love has been named the PAC-10 Conference Player of the Year. Russell Westbrook was also named the PAC-10 Defensive Player of the Year.

Congrats to both who truly deserved both awards.

by SmrtGuy82 on Mar 10, 2008 2:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Big man hedging

I love the way Aboya hedges on the screens. He's good at anticipating where the point guard will be and keeping the pressure on for a few strides before recovering in the post.

Love, for all his abilities, does not have great foot speed. It seems like when he hedges, it takes too long for him to recover in the rotation, and we end up giving up an easy bucket. I'd much rather keep Love in the low block and let Collison handle his man one-on-one, and then hedge when Aboya or LMR are in the game.

by insomniacslounge on Mar 10, 2008 4:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

We'd be better off leaving Love inside and not having him hedge. It's like night and day between Love and AA2/LMR in this aspect. This isn't a case of picking up defensive assignments or learning the scheme but just a case of Love being too slow to recover, in my opinion.

by Raisin on Mar 10, 2008 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you don't hedge

you get picked apart by a good three point shooting guard. If you watched the Duke/UNC game, whenever the UNC big man didn't hedge, Paulus or Scheyer launched a 3 ball. You HAVE to hedge.

by Nars on Mar 10, 2008 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would go against...

our core defensive philosophy if we didn't hedge. But yes, it takes Love far too long to recover from a hedge. The opposing team will have big guy cutting to the basket being defended by a smaller guard and can either dump it off to the cutter or pass it to the open perimeter player for a three. Love, IMO, needs to bust his ass to get back to his man off those hedges. Or Ben Howland can put LMR and Love in the game at the same time to assist in our defensive rotations. A team like Cal should never had gotten so many easy baskets.

by bruin8uclap on Mar 10, 2008 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't know that was called a "hedge"

Maybe I watch Mata-Real more closely because I admire the guy so much, but he seems to do that move better than anyone else. But what I have also noticed is that the guy setting the screen almost never gets the ball immediately in any sort of position to be able to do anything. I need to start watching what's going on away from the ball when that happens.

by Fox 71 on Mar 11, 2008 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lost for 2 simple reasons

There was a third simple reason, which was rooted in the ones you named:

3)
They kicked the ball back out and shot the lights out for three when we doubled their bigs.

It would be really nice if that would work for us when Love gets doubled -- we need reliable shooting.

by bruinofthenorth on Mar 10, 2008 5:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We do NOT have a Humphrey!

and the closest player to a humphrey, collison, normally doesn't look for that three point shot. wish we had roll back.

by woodenwannabe on Mar 10, 2008 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Florida Trio

At least they had some basketball smarts.

As they had stayed around for one year, there was no reason not to stay around for another and try to "rival" our dynasty. Well, there was one reason - if they knew they wouldn't succeed in the next year, and didn't want to be exposed. Humphrey was leaving, and he was a real key. Maybe he wasn't acknowledged as one, but I think the hotshots who were supposed to be so good knew what he did. So they left with him.

by jaffa on Mar 10, 2008 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

next season's incoming class

how is their shooting ability from 3? do we have a sharpshooter?

I know we get Roll back next year, that's a relief.

by bruinofthenorth on Mar 10, 2008 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Love's lack of speed evident against cal

it was very obvious from the student section that KLove did not have the necessary speed to keep up with the hedging and containing Randle. He would go out for the high screen, and Randle, instead of going around to screen like Johnson did the previous game, would stop and go back, clearly seeing KLove's man with a lane to the basketball (usually being Anderson or Boykin). Every time this happened, and every time KLove would stay out there almost expecting contact and acting really confused we none was made. I think he needs to stay back more often (especially when covering a player like Anderson) and provide under the basket defense. He can come out once in a while to mix it up, but if he consistently does the hedge, he will consistently get beat like on Saturday when teams adapt to attack this weakness. Leave the hedge to AA2, LRMAM, Keefe, and LMR, big men with speed. We need to respect the direction-changing ability of the guards we might face in the tourney like Rose, Augustine, Lawson and other little scrappy ones, because they will eat slow big men alive on the hedge.

GO BRUINS!!! CHEER LIKE CHAMPIONS!!!

...ON ROAD TO THE ALAMODOME!!!

by bk bruin on Mar 10, 2008 6:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Great post M

I have been thinking about our team's issues for a bit now. I am still trying to figure out why it takes while for our guys to get going defensively. Against Oregon, Stanford, and Cal our defensive effort from outset was pretty horrific. It wasn't until the second half we locked down in the those games. I hope our guys don't play with fire like that in terms of turning their defensive intensity on and off like that during the tourney. It will bite us in the end.

I will see if I can expand on this more in the coming days.

Great post again.

by Nestor on Mar 10, 2008 6:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

two cents

Here is my theory as to why we start slow defensively: we run a very simple but effective defensive set which is easy to counter early but eventually wears teams down.

In the first half, the opponent coach's game preparation is still fresh in the players' minds. They practiced all week for UCLA's sets including the double team down low. Thus, they can be effective early (e.g., Cal and Stanford this weekend).

However, typically in the second half, fatigue sets in and, particularly when a game is close and the stakes are higher, teams start to lose their discipline while our warriors are just getting started. Hence we see more UCLA steals, blocks, and forced turnovers. We are like a good RB and offensive line in the 4th quarter. We keep pounding until they break.

That is why in order to go where we want to go, we absolutely have to make sure we either stay close offensively early or mix up our defensive sets a little bit early. Since I have never seen us do the latter, I think it is critical for us not to fall behind like this past week. We can get away with it against Cal, but not against an elite team.

by Dienekes on Mar 10, 2008 7:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Very interesting Thoughts

It certainly is true that the opponents have trouble with our defense in the last 10 minutes of a game. In the tournaments, our defense will be more effective, because the coaches in the tournaments haven't spent three years and two games a year preparing to attack it.

by 75NatChamps on Mar 11, 2008 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree

My perception is that we had a much harder time in conference play the second time through (e.g., Washington, Cal, Stanford, Oregon). There are exceptions though: USC (however, revenge was a big motivator for us), Arizona (McKale Center is always tough), and Wash. St. (handled them just as easily the second time as the first). Given that we switch home and away the second time through, there is too much statistical noise to make a real inference here. But I agree we will have a much easier time imposing our defensive will in the tournament than in recent conference play. However, it works both ways. It will take us a while to adjust to opposing teams' defensive sets--but this is where preparation is critical.

by Dienekes on Mar 11, 2008 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

meriones . . . a correction

I think we lost to florida , because donovan was the better coach _ He has been there as a player , asst. coach , where howland had no experience _ howland's biggest failure was double-teaming , because the open man , on florida , made his shots _ I think howland should have , played man to man only _ # 2 was Aaron getting two quick fouls , then a third, in the 1st half _ this is because he placed too much pressure on himself, the result again of howland did not have the experience to properly prepare the kids, to be in the correct frame of mind _ where donovan had his kids going into the game in the correct psycho - state . . thus donovan's kids played effectively and efficiently , like Mr Wooden ( be quick / don't hurry __ While howland has the image of a good defense coach , you will no one who thinks , he is an excellent offense coach _ which explains why the kids start out the game slow / badly, and can't get an good offense going, resulting in late game comebacks _ as with others , can our 2 man backcourt / with no subs , play all these games without getting worn-out / burned out _ our biggest problem , is not having a effective well-playing offense

by colonybruin on Mar 10, 2008 8:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Howland can't coach offense. Never mind our offense is ranked number 4 in the country. Look I have no problem w folks offering up constructive criticism of our program. But again asinine comments like this (incidentally coming from another guy from Wooden era) gives off that stench of a spoiled fan. Whatever.

by Nestor on Mar 11, 2008 4:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you a realtor?

Your comments looks like one of those junky MLS listings. Random italics, punctuation all over the place, half-thoughts, missing capital letters and incoherent ramblings. Excellent.

by Nars on Mar 11, 2008 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Donovan vs. Howland

Donovan had more talent than Howland did the last 2 years - especially inside as M stated originally.

The talent level at UCLA probably still isn't where it could be. Howland is only in his 5th year at the school and hasn't had many scholarships to play with over the last couple of years to capitalize on the two trips to the Final 4. Yet he still managed to get KL.

Next year's class will be the one, I think, to truly up the talent level on the team and can provide the depth we've been lacking.

Donovan has been at Florida for awhile - making the finals in 2000. It took him another 6 years to win it.

Who's the better coach? Could Donovan take a team to the Final 4 with Ryan Hollins or Lorenzo Mata at center? I doubt it. And don't forget Michael Fey.

by mizzou on Mar 11, 2008 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Talent was not the problem"

Let me clue you in on something:
3rd pick in the 07 draft by Atlanta: Al Horford
7th pick by Minnesota: Corey Brewer
9th pick by Chicago: Joakim Noah
41st pick by Minnesota: Chris Richard
52nd pick by Portland: Taurean Green

That's 3 lottery picks and 2 second round picks

27th pick by Detroit: Arron Afflalo

vs. one first round pick

Now I'm not one to suggest that NBA talent is the be all, end all when it comes to winning, but it does invalidate your "talent was not the problem" argument.

I've yet to see an egregious example of unfairly "blaming the kids" as you put it. I've yet to see you explain why such a horrible offensive team is fourth in the nation in offensive efficiency. Unless you can explain those or find something to support your points, I strongly suggest you stop using them.

by Tydides on Mar 11, 2008 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

defending howland

there are two kinds of Bruins _ those like Nester who worship coaches . . putting the Blame on the kids, claiming the kids are at fault _ then there are those who care about the school and the kids, who know that a coaches job , is to get the kids to play to their potential as individuals and as a team _ howland has not designed a effective offense, this is why his defense is so hard-core, because he knows he is very limited on offense _ howland is getting 1.5 million, his offense should be as good as his defense _ so first you need to figure out, why you have this need to Blame the kids, rather than someone who is getting 1.5 million _ expressing an opinion is a sign of intelligence, insulting people . . belittling people just demonstrates you feel your opinion is weak and lacking , thus a need to get personal

by colonybruin on Mar 11, 2008 6:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

First of all

That writing style is irritating. The return key is your friend.

Second of all, appreciating coaches does not equal "blaming the kids". I didn't see you trotting that out when BN was defending the football players from KD's Wheel of Blame this year. In fact, I don't see anyone blaming the players for anything. This team is 28-3.

Third. I would like to know what measure you would use to determine when Howland has finally designed a "good" offense by your definition? Fourth in the country out of 300 something teams seems pretty good to me. Or is it your arbitrary scale with the moving bar that you'll use to find something to complain about?

You talk about expressing an opinion being a sign of intelligence, but I don't see your opinion being backed up by anything. Your claim of blaming the kids is false. The effective offense claim is false by the numbers. So it seems you're content to insult the intelligence of the community by suggesting that we should respect your opinion "because you say so" in light of the objective numbers and evidence that suggest that you are wrong. In effect, your opinion is the only one here that is "weak and lacking", and you were the one to "get personal" about it. You know what they say, when you point the finger, 3 more point back at you.

by Tydides on Mar 11, 2008 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

offensive efficiency

Is their computation publicized? In other words, can we look at the factors that they base their ranking on?

I'm wondering how much of the weighting is coming from our offensive rebounding.

by bruinofthenorth on Mar 11, 2008 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

found it

"the number of points that a team has scored per 100 possessions."

Okay, so out offensive rebounding no doubt is a major factor. I was wondering how much of this is due to KLove.

by bruinofthenorth on Mar 11, 2008 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

colony -- I am willing to agree to disagree...

... but I find the tone of your post somewhat insulting.

To say that there are only "two kinds of bruins" and dividing them up into people who (1) worship coaches and blame kids and (2) those who care about the school is unfair.

I have enthusiastic appreciation for CBH's coaching, and last week against Stanford, I noted that CBH's double-team from the get-go tactics were hurting us, and that delaying and changing the speed and frequency of the doubling was a GOOD adjustment from the original plan.

Is CBH perfect? No. But at the same time, I do not consider myself someone who blames the kids when things go wrong. Also, I would ask that you point to any instant where Nestor or other longtime posters here have "blamed the kids" for a bad performance. We may point out when they simply did not score, or produce, or got burned on plays, but to decry such observations as "blame"
imparts more of a negative judgment of them than may actually be intended.

Granted, I find that the offense this year has certainly been inconsistent; however, to say it is not effective is also unfair, as a number of efficiency ratings during the year and in the past 2 seasons have noted that our offense, while low-scoring compared to the Arizona's of the world, has actually been very effective in terms of percentage of scoring trips, points off offensive rebounds, and in capitalizing off of opponents' turnovers.

And to respond to your earlier post, I submit that the presence of a more effective low-post scorer would have done wonders for us the past 2 Final Fours. When 3 of your 4 leading scorers get the overwhelming majority of their points from slashing or outside shooting, and 2 of the other team's leading scorers work best in the paint and low block, you're at a disadvantage.

Yes, we may have over-doubled last year against Florida early on, and AA may have been too hyped to start, but even Coach Wooden himself, in his humility, has said that the team with the better talent usually wins. We could have done things better last year, and we could have won the whole enchilada, but Florida's entire starting lineup got drafted in the same 2-year stretch, and that should not be easily dismissed.

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Mar 11, 2008 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Colony, I'm with the others on this

I think you are way off base to say that anyone here "blames the players." No one blames the players, except to the extent that we blame some guy on some other team for being too good or too smart or (as in the case of UW) to much of a thug.

We don't blame Bruins, and never have. If that is your take on what this site is all about, then you need to think about taking remedial reading, because you obviously don't comprehend what the written word imparts.

It's extremely hard to take you seriously when your major premise is so fundamentally flawed.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2008 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs