SB Nation User Blog: Underbruin

"UCLA forward Luc Richard Mbah a Moute and North Carolina guard Danny Green are among the players...

Underbruin — Thu, 29 May 2008 21:25:30 -0000

"UCLA forward Luc Richard Mbah a Moute and North Carolina guard Danny Green are among the players the Bulls are keeping tabs on for the ninth pick of the second round. Both are expected to work out for the team at the Berto Center. One scout considers the 6-8, 229-pound Mbah a Moute the prospect with the quickest lateral movement at the draft camp, and he showed why when he defended 6-2 Jeremy Pargo of Gonzaga and 6-6 Richard Roby of Colorado on Tuesday night. 'I take pride in playing defense,' said Mbah a Moute."

Chicago Sun-Times, via TrueHoop.

Perfect Package for UCLA in '09?

Underbruin — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:00:46 -0000

I can't help myself with the MSM-style puns for diary titles. I can see how copy editors at the Times could get caught up with them. Heh.

Anyway, I'm surprised this hasn't yet been noted, but I figured BN might be interested. While some moan and groan about the 'doom' of the basketball program, Ben Howland simply gets back to work.

Since it's premium content, I can't post anything beyond what's listed in the free preview, but frontpaged on BRO is: "There are some big basketball recruiting developments involving the #2-ranked player in the class of 2009, post player Renardo Sidney, and the #3-ranked player in the nation, 6-5 small forward Lance Stephenson..."

From what I've been able to gather, Lance (who visited UCLA over the weekend) would like to go to college with his friend Renardo. Think not unlike high school/AAU teammates Gred Oden and Mike Conley. Sidney and Stephenson are currently on the same AAU team themselves, the L.A. Dream Team (I'm not one to believe in superstition, but that has the potential to be awfully prophetic).

Sidney, as has been suggested in the past, would probably like to stay in Los Angeles. Rumors have him very interested in coming to UCLA, with the big hurdle being his grades. Questions of character have arisen as well, which I have to imagine figure in to any scholarship offers. Either way, now some are suggesting that if Stephenson goes with Sidney, he seems to prefer UCLA over other west coast options. This provides the Bruins with the tantalizing prospect of being able to bring in two top-5 players together.

Sidney, I think, has been covered already as a targeted player. Stephenson is extraordinarily talented - there is a documentary of his quest for basketball success currently in the works (or done? not sure...) called "Born Ready." He's 6'5, out of NYC, EA Sports' National Player of the Year in the junior class. Can play the 2 or the 3, I believe. Actually played with Jrue Holiday at the Elite 24 Hoops Classic last summer, with the two being named Co-MVPs of their team.

I've heard things both good and bad regarding both players, but I believe that if they can both get themselves eligible for admission, the team would take them (something that I seem to recall being suggested by multiple sources, at least in Sidney's case). Both players very well might be in the 'one-and-done' mold, but offer immense talent for their short time available. Given the good we've seen Kevin Love do, it would be hard to pass up not one, but two players who hold similar game-changing potential, at the least. Pairing them with Reeves Nelson would give the team another fantastic group of signees to follow this upcoming one, a likely top-10 class.

To paraphrase a well-known sports cliche, "it's not rebuilding, it's reloading."

UCLA 'horning' in on potential QB transfer?

Underbruin — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:51:12 -0000

... Ok, first I must apologize for the absolutely terrible pun in the topic (apropos though it may be, as you'll see). I couldn't stop myself, and I can only beg forgiveness.

Anyway, word is coming down the pipeline that one of 2006's higher-rated high school QBs, Sherrod Harris, is considering a transfer away from Texas. I have seen UCLA's name pop up among the potential landing spots more than once. One time on a UM forum - mentioned because UM and UCLA were supposedly tops on his list - and in a random comment on a Texas board. I don't have access to UT's premium content (nor UCLA's, for that matter - though I haven't seen any topic titles mentioning this on the Bruin premium boards), so take this with the enormous grain of salt it requires. And let me clarify here - Harris is definitely *considering* transferring. The question is, a) will he?, and b) is UCLA really a potential destination?

I would also advise caution given that he's transferring at least partially, it appears, due to playing time issues, and UCLA isn't exactly short of QBs, and they're well-spaced across the classes as well. Furthermore, UCLA was never on the radar when he first came out of high school, though there are plenty of reasons why that might have been the case. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that Harris believes UCLA would be a good fit for him. Especially given UCLA's QB struggles the past two seasons, he might feel the opportunity exists for him to earn his way onto the field, something I get the sense appears to be unlikely at UT.

And if it's true, I can tell you without any hesitation that this kid would be an unbelievable fit. Beyond being a gifted athlete (word on his 40 time varies greatly, but is usually pretty quick - Rivals has him at a 4.45!), the guy is a stellar student. If I'm remembering correctly, his SAT score was in the 1300s (using the old '1600' scoring range), and he had a perfect 4.0 GPA. He's also apparently a great kid personality-wise.

Again, let me restate that this is both extremely early-warning (he's only giving indications of a desire to trasnfer), and that UCLA's prominence on his list might be completely wrong. To borrow from Brian at MGoBlog, on the 'rumor credibility' scale this probably ranks around a 1.5/5: Between "clearly biased speculation without backing" and "Some guy saying something on some board that claims insider info due to a chance occurence." If this turns out to be unfounded, I apologize, but I felt that some folks might be interested in the FB program's doings in the few days before the roundball team returns to the court.

(UB's note: if this turns out to be false, I'm canning this diary, just a heads-up)

Update: From ShaggyBevo.com - "Sherrod has not made any decisions at this time. He is focused on Spring Drills and doing the best he can. He is a Longhorn." I'll stay on this for the moment, but it sounds less likely as the day goes by.

An attempted analysis of Norm Chow's philosophy and (partial) playbook

Underbruin — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:38:44 -0000

Bumped from the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N

Cross-posted from Standing in the Shadows of the San Gabriels - some images embedded over there as well.

I would like to note before I begin that a lot of my football knowledge has atrophied greatly. I haven't played competitively for a while now (flag football, of course, does not count =P). So please take anything and everything that follows with an enormous grain of salt.

That being said -

In Nestor's post on the LA Times interview of Neuheisal and Chow, there is this comment by BHW linking to a speech by Chow, and a sample from his playbook. As an aside, I would like to note that, contrary to what I think is being suggested, this is not the entire Norm Chow offense, only the 5-step drop patterns (and a couple of 7-drops if they're still in use - see below). Hence the 'partial' in the diary title. There are different passing sets (the 50s/90s/etc), and obviously there are no running plays listed. Nevertheless, it's a good sampling of what he seems to like to accomplish with his offense, so I thought I'd look through it. But far more instructive, I found, was the link to Chow's presentation on the precepts of his offense. It offers a great look into his thought processes, and I'd highly recommend reading the whole thing if you have some time to kill. If not, hopefully this post will help some. To continue.

Summary point number 1, is to understand Chow's "rules" for quarterbacks and offense in general. In his speech, he lists them as such:

"[The QB should] Never give a command that will be misunderstood, and always give a command that will be understood."
"We want to know what the QB saw on the play and why he made his decision."
"The third rule for the QB is that he is never wrong."
"Always throw the football to the receiver. Throw the ball straight ahead." [ed - In case this isn't clear, he's talking about mechanics and simplicity together. Get in the right position and throw to the open man. Do your work off the field so that you don't have to think about it ON the field.]
"We are going to protect the QB, otherwise nothing works."
"We try to make it easy for the QB... He is concerned about throwing the football. He has enough to worry about." [ed - There's a handful of read examples in the full article, if you're curious about some specifics.]
"We are going to try to control the football with the forward pass... there are two statistics we believe in. One is the time of possession. We feel we need to win this battle. The other statistic we want to win is the turnover battle... What does this mean in our terms? Check downs!"
"The third aspect of the passing game is this: We want to kiss it... Keep It Simple Stupid." [ed - My personal favorite, as always.]

Then he starts getting into the gist of his offensive mechanics. Important concepts will be bolded for your convenience.

He mentions his 60 series. The '60' is the protection, the 'ones' digit is the pass patterns.

"We may call the play 65 for example. This means the lineman know it is basic 60 cup protection. The 5 is the pass pattern for that play... The mistake that coaches make is to make it too complicated." Paging the WCO to the white courtesy phone... The West Coast Offense, to the white courtesy phone, please... Anyway.

He then talks about using 3- and 5-step drops and play-action, as well as establishing the run. Big money graf for me:

"Also we need the ability to sprint out at times. [emphasis added] The reason you need the ability to sprint out is this: If you can't handle the defense on the inside you can take the ball outside; if we get beat on the outside, we can step up in the pocket; if they come up the middle then get to the outside." One of the reasons USC was so dangerous with Chow heading their offense was their ability, and willingness, to use the entirety of the field in both protection and release point, and it's clear that has always been a hallmark of his offense, and not just a reaction to having Reggie Bush's speed (is making a 'bought and paid for' joke too easy here?).

To control the blitz and hard edge rush, use screens and traps/counters - use their eagerness to get into the backfield against them. Another money quote:

"We don't run the 7 step drop game when we can not protect the passer. We run the football. We throw the ball on timed routes, we throw the screen and draws, and we are going to run some gimmick plays just to slow the game down a bit. This is our game plan every week." He starts discussing the passing schemes USC's offense designed to attack the zone. He calls it "building triangles."

No word if Tex Winter plans to sue for infringement. Though he doesn't say it explicitly, I'm assuming the idea is that by creating a triangle with your potential receivers, you're likely to find the "hole" in the zone with at least one of them. Additionally, the receivers all move 'obliquely' (that is, both down the field and across the field), stretching the zone to widen the spacing. More after the jump ...

One important point to understand: the concept of the "8" passing zones (I was always a little fuzzy on this, as I played DLine, so forgive me if this is confusing and/or incorrect; I think I have it right). You have 3 deep passing zones, strong/middle/weak. Then you have 5 zones underneath (usually the underneath routes extend to about the safety coverage at the snap) - 5 instead of 3 because with the shorter distance, passes must be more precise.

A pass 5 yards forward just outside the hashmarks is far different than a pass 5 yards forward but all the way to the sideline. This is much less true for a 20+ yard bomb. If the defense only rushes 3, run it down their throats. Otherwise, at least one 'passing zone' will be open - find it and you're in business.

From this point he begins breaking down specific plays (I'll get to that in a bit). He talks about 'tagging' routes - that is, take a play and change one specific route for different situations. Say, changing the halfback's route if the linebackers are playing the pass. Or using the tight end to take advantage of a safety in man coverage. This affects blocking schemes - block 'big on big' - so an RB should never take on a DL, and if the smaller players don't blitz (e.g. 4-man rush) release the backs to catch passes. Some tags tell the QB if he needs to use his hot read or not. If the "Sam" tag is used, the 'Sam' linebacker (usually strongside LB) is unblockable. If he blitzes, the QB must take his hot read (generally HB/FB). Tags can also change the order of the QB progression (which receivers should get first look). So the complexity in a Norm Chow offense seems to come from using 'tags' to adapt to the defense, giving Chow the flexibility to play his 'chess game' for which he has become famous.

Lots more very play-specific stuff. Really, do read the full thing if you get a shot - it's fascinating. I mean:

Let me show you what we do against the basic Cover 3 with a basic 4-3 defense. On the first step the QB takes he is reading the MLB. The MLB will give the QB direction. If the MLB goes weakside it means the WLB has taken the flat away. If the MLB has taken the curl route away the read now becomes inside-out to the defenders on that side. We have three underneath receivers and the defense has only two defenders on that side. If the strong safety hangs on the curl and runs to the flat we throw the ball to curl inside. If the SLB takes away the curl by the tight end and the strong side safety takes the curl by the Flanker the QB throws the ball to the flat. If the SLB goes to the middle and the strong safety goes to the flat we throw the curl with the Flanker. You have four defenders underneath in this coverage. We have five receivers underneath. The QB simply has to find the open receiver. We do not run this play against Cover 2 as there are five underneath defenders and two deep in coverage as the match up is less favorable. That's just a sample of the awesome.

One interesting note buried in the middle of the play-specific info. Chow apparently limits audibles to just a pair of potential plays: "Against man coverage we allow two basic calls. Against Cover 3 it is two basic calls. Against Cover 2 it is two basic calls. The QB knows he has only two basic calls against the defense. If he comes up to the line and sees the defense is in something that will give us a problem with the play called in the huddle, he has two plays he can check to. We do not have a complicated list." If that precept was still around the season after he left 'SC, it puts that Leinart audible against Notre Dame into an interesting new light.

Now, I'd like to cover one of the plays available in the BYU playbook. Specifically, the 62 Crossing Route (noted as 'X Shallow' on the BYU playbook page, but in his speech - more recent - he calls it the Crossing Route; it's Figure 12, if you're looking). If you don't know how to read a play diagram: the square with the X through it is the center. The white dot immediately behind him is the QB, and the two dots on either side are the rest of the OL. The WR out wide on the left - on the line of scrimmage - is the split end, or 'X.' The WR out wide on the right, behind the LOS, is the flanker or 'Z.' The dot on the end of the strong side of the LOS (the same side as the flanker) is the tight end, called the 'Y.' The backs are lined up behind the QB.

I'd quickly like to note that in the pages available, you can see a handful of different plays. I think these are versions of 'tags,' though not necessarily the exact same thing (remember, BYU playbook doesn't exactly equal USC playbook). The idea seems to be that each one is the same general play, either with a route change (like a tag), or run out of different offensive sets. So for the 62 Z Shallow (the image in the middle row, on the right), you can see the alignment is the same as the normal play. But the TE and flanker switch responsibilities - the TE runs a post and the flanker runs the mesh across the middle of the field. While the 62 Twins accomplishes the exact same goals as the regular play (TE and split end mesh, flanker runs post into the middle of the field), it is out of a different formation. I hope this clears up these diagrams a bit. Anyway, for the analysis, we'll be looking at the standard play (the big image).

First, let's look at the QB's responsibilities. You can see the 7 next to the line coming from behind the QB - that means a 7-step drop. I doubt that's still the case, though, as Chow seems to have become very critical of 7-step drops. My guess is if this play IS run, it'd be a 5 instead. Anyway, at the end of the drop, the QB must 'peek' at the free safety (safety support on that side). If the safety has come up, the Z receiver will soon be streaking open (or in single-coverage) down the middle of the field. Big gainer. If FS is staying back, forget the Z. Now we enter the 'progressions' - see the "1"s next to the X and Y receivers. Check the mesh in the middle underneath zone. If neither player is open, come down to the backs, which are the "2" options.

Now, how does this work? Well, first, let's examine 2 eventualities: is the defense zone or man? This is a play designed against a man defense. If it's zone, the QB is taught to check down to a back, usually the one on the strong side (as the LB/S are either blitzing, or more likely occupied with the 2 receivers already on this side, the X and Z). "We want to throw the ball three yards and get three more on the run. Now, we have a second and four situation."

If the D is man, obviously you hope the safety has crept forward. Your flanker just may be flying down the middle with three steps on his guy - TD. Possible, but unlikely. So we come to our mesh option. Note: a 'mesh' is not a pick. There's no designed contact. But the proximity of the X and Y receivers should mean that one will come open as the man coverage gets mixed up in the middle. The tight end determines how deep the mesh is (where is the hole between LBs and SS - 4 yards off the LOS? 8? etc), and the split end must cross closely enough to throw off the defense without losing speed. And, again, the two backs are available as extra blockers or release valves, just looking for positive yardage.

The reason this play can be effective is that it is designed to use the offense's built-in advantages over the defense. It uses all 3 levels of the field (deep, intermediate, short), and threatens all 8 zones. The flanker covers the deep middle. The crossing routes threaten the underneath zones in the center of the field, with the potential for a runout into the deep zones on the strong and weak sides. And the backs can both release into the flats and head towards the sidelines. Even if the play is called against the wrong defense (if D is in a zone) there's an easy checkdown.

On the defensive side, it's hard to attack a play like this barring a perfect defensive call. The play is designed to allow the QB to make a decision with the ball as soon as his drop is completed (the FS peek/zone checkdown), or let the play develop (mesh). Now, it IS possible to blow this play up (an overload blitz with WLB/SS comes to mind), but if the exact defense isn't called it comes down to the D outplaying the O. At some point, the players have to play, but a well-designed offense gives them that opportunity - a 'position to succeed' instead of a 'position to fail,' and the like.

I hope this might answer a few questions, and raise a few more (hey, if you're not learning something new, why bother with anything at all?). Again, as I stated at the top, this information may be entirely wrong. But I hope not, and I do hope that it gives some insight as to the philosophies of our new OC, as well as a general look at the inner workings of some of his offense.

Closing quote from Chow:

"The point I am trying to make and I want you to remember is that we are in the best profession in the world. We can go to work in shorts and tennis shoes. Don't forget to teach kids technique. Teach kids values and character. If we can do that we will all be successful. I appreciate you listening to my lecture."

Statistical Analysis of this season's UCLA BBall team

Underbruin — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:55:06 -0000

Turning into a bit of a conversation with myself here, as I've mentioned a couple of times in the past, I'm doing a series of posts on UCLA and USC basketball, using some modern statistical analysis. You can find my first post, explaining what these numbers mean, here. Again in case you missed it before, I'm using David Berri's Win Score metric, which attempts to quantify all a player's stats into a single numerical value. After laying out what I planned to do, I first took a look at USC, titled "Why O.J. Mayo is overrated - part 9,745,398,606". I posted a brief summation in a diary here on BN. I can imagine you get the gist of that one.

Now comes today's post, "Why UCLA is very lucky to have Kevin Love, part 34,785,900". This title, too, is fairly self-explanatory, though the post itself goes into much more depth. The short version: Love is good. Really good. Like... best in the country good. And Luc and Zo are much better than people give them credit for being, while Shipp and Westbrook are perhaps a tad overrated (though, I hasten to add UCLA's top 6 players all have a higher Win Score than O.J. Mayo, heh). A sample section, some of the analysis on Mbah a Moute and Mata-Real:

Probably the biggest surprises in this group of stats are the high rankings of Mata-Real and The Prince. Zo and Luc (despite his 3-point follies) are high-percentage shooters that rebound the ball extremely well. If it sounds familiar, it should - nearly all high-value players in Win Score do so. Because he's a smart, well-coached player who picks his spots to shoot while going after every rebound Mata-Real scores well in this stat. Furthermore, he's actually one of the better shot-blockers in the Pac-10. Let's correct for playing time, as a theoretical exercise. Assume a linear increase to Zo's stats, relative to his minutes played. Now change the number of minutes Mata-Real plays to the number of minutes Kevin Love has played so far. In that case, Zo would average around 2 blocks a game. That's around the same level as the much more touted shot-blocking of Taj Gibson.
In comparison to Lorenzo's focus on boards and blocks, Luc's high score shows the value of a well-rounded game. He doesn't necessarily excel at any one aspect, and in fact has regressed statistically each year he's been at UCLA (more on this in a later post). But he still provides plenty of value to the team in nearly every category. His turnovers are a bit high for a 3/4 on a team with plenty of ball-handlers, but that's about his only real weakness. Much like Lorenzo's offense, Luc plays defense very intelligently - he avoids fouls, grabs a handful of steals and blocks when he can, and protects the defensive glass.

All in all, it's interesting how modern statistical analysis can in some ways support what you believe: UCLA as a team is better than USC by a pretty sizable margin (yes, I know UCLA lost at Pauley - and the Yankees let the Red Sox come back from 3-0, odd things happen in sports), Kevin Love is an absolute beast. In other ways, though, it challenges what you originally thought: Westbrook is a bit overrated, Roll won't really be missed (obviously, the stat can't measure the impact of having so few healthy bodies, but based solely on production he didn't really add anything). Hope you folks find this moderately interesting. My analysis of this team version last season comes up next, and, uhh... I imagine it might be rather vehemently disagreed with.

Still, one must soldier on! Go Bruins!

Love vs Mayo, and more...

Underbruin — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:25:24 -0000

So, as I mentioned in a previous diary, over at my blog I'm putting together a rather sizable new-stats analysis of this year's UCLA team (both as it stands alone, and relative to last season), and of USC. My USC post is now up here, titled "Why O.J. Mayo is overrated - part 9,745,398,606." I started with 'SC because I was curious to see just how much more valuable the addition of Davon Jefferson was than Mayo. Short answer: a sizable amount. If you're not interested in the numbers, the basic gist is that Mayo puts up lots of points, but does so in an inefficient fashion, and without adding much else.

Not only is Mayo not the best player on his team, he barely cracks the starting 5, with a VERY pedestrian 4.568 WS/40 (ed note - WS/40 = Win Score per 40 minutes... The average point guard has a WS/40 of over 7.5)! A closer look at his numbers explains the low total - not only is Mayo an inefficient scorer, but that's about the only thing he's even remotely competent at doing. He doesn't rebound very well, and though he's so/so at acquiring assists, his massive 4 turnovers a game far outweigh whatever benefits his passing might otherwise offer.

Much of the analysis is built on Professor David Berri's Win Score metric. Imagine my surprise when, going to check on his page as I posted my own entry, I found an analysis of many of the current pro draft prospects had just been added, using the same metric! It seems I'm not the only one who had the idea, and in fact, guest poster Erich Doerr came to the same conclusion concerning Mayo, that "Despite the... level of hype, O.J. Mayo has been Telfair-rific (not a good thing in the world of Win Scores)." He covers a number of other top players, and interestingly, upcoming foe Chase Budinger fares even more poorly than Mayo.

Doerr also includes his notes on Kevin Love, as "there are several Win Score powerhouses that are seemingly overlooked. Win Score superstar Kevin Love seems to be projected as a late to mid first rounder." I have my own conclusions concerning Love and the entirety of this season's Bruin team (as well as, like I mentioned, a comparison between last season's team and this one), but that's pretty much the same conclusion I had. Kevin Love has been a huge boost to this year's team - OJ Mayo has been barely a contributor in his team's successes.

The great, the really great, and the slightly worrisome

Underbruin — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:34:49 -0000

Bumped from the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N

Cross-posted from Standing in the Shadows of the San Gabriels. N, if I'm doing this incorrectly, please let me know. Thanks. -UB

Editor's note: If you're interested at all in the sabermetrics number stuff that follows in this post, please feel free to check out my blog, which Nestor was kind enough to BlogRoll earlier this month. I'm putting up a big post there with regards to this year's UCLA team vs. last year, and why OJ Mayo barely even deserves to be in his team's starting 5, much less its main star. It's a bit too tables-and-numbers-heavy for a diary, which is why I'm sticking it over there. As for what's going on here... Read on, if you will.

I thought I'd chime in with a few observations. Humor me, please.

First, it's great to see Darren Collison getting back to the form we all believed he could, and would, display all season. I was of the opinion that he had never fully healed from his knee injury, and it's only been in the past few games that he's really started to look like the Collison of last season. Much more aggressive in the lane, more willing to push off his knee for those little floaters in the lane, and to elevate on his outside jumpers. Anybody who has played basketball knows how, in truth, shooting form starts not from the arms, but from the legs. Even a tiny tweak can be enough to throw off a player like Darren, whose shooting method is already slightly unorthodox. So major kudos to him for his inspired play this weekend, and I have full confidence that he is beginning to once again trust in his knee. Just a great sign.

Second, Kevin Love. We all knew he was going to be good, but I'm not sure we realized just how good. Depending on your personal view of the importance of possession usage, Kevin Love is either the best, third best, or 19th best offensive player in the country. Slightly confused? I'll try to explain. For those of you not familiar with his work, Ken Pomeroy is THE name in modern (read: moderately sabermetric-style) basketball statistics. In addition to his KenPom.com site, he is one of the head writers for Basketball Prospectus, which is a must-read for unique takes on the game. With regards to his methodology, one stat he uses is ORtg, or 'Offensive Rating,' a stat that addresses the number of points a player produces if he were to use 100 possessions.

Anyway, at KenPom.com, he lists the top players in the country in Offensive Rating - in other words, the best in the country at producing points for their teams. Kevin Love is the #1-ranked offensive player in the country, measuring players who use 24% of their team's offensive possessions and up (in other words, star players). He's a small distance in front of UNC's own Psycho T. The two are a fairly sizable distance in front of every other player on that list. If you'd like to peruse the full list (really quite interesting) you can find it here. The first list on that page is players who use more than 28% of their team's possessions. See Mayo, OJ, who is below the league average efficiency of 101 despite using 30% of his team's offensive opportunities - K-Love is at almost 130. Love, despite his extremely high efficiency, barely misses that 28% 'superstar' watermark, using 27.3%. If he clears the 28% usage mark, he'll be leading that list as well, and by a very significant margin. A team of 5 Kevin Loves would outscore the current top 'superstar'-usage player by over 12 points in an average UCLA game.

--One note: the list linked above was updated last Sunday the 20th, and the new one has not come out as of the writing of this post. I'll update this diary with the new listings once it does, but I can't imagine Love's scores doing anything but rising given his dominance this past weekend.

(The formula for this value, ORtg, is quite complex. It's possible to actually derive the full formula for free online with a lot of digging, but since its progenitor, Dean Oliver, released a book on that subject I'll avoid posting it here. Suffice to say that it basically assigns a point value to each assist, 2- or 3-point basket, and offensive rebound, then adjusts it for how many possesions the player uses to get those stats, and multiplies by a hundred... I think. I could be remembering slightly wrong, to be honest. Anyway, if you're really interested, go buy Oliver's Basketball on Paper -- HIGHLY recommended and sadly underrated by the casual basketball saber community. Or get The Wages of Wins -- much more famous book by David Berri. Alternatively, leave me a comment or shoot me a message/email and I'll send you some links - the stuff's actually a really interesting point of discussion if you ask me. Anyway, tangent over, sorry.)

As to the slightly worrisome - UCLA is shooting too many 3s. I know you don't want to hear it, but somebody has to say it. The Bruins are loosing FAR too many outside shots, and they're lucky that the addition of Love means that he's able to go and get plenty of their misses, as one of the best offensive rebounders in the country. UCLA is 2nd to last in 3-point shooting percentage in the Pac-10, only ahead of woeful Oregon State. As a team, the Beavers are shooting under 28% from 3 -- that's like an entire team of Mbah a Moutes launching 18 3s a game (shows how they were hitting rather lucky tonight against UCLA). No offense Luc, but yikes. But, the Bruins are right in the middle of the Pac in 3-point attempts, even throwing them up more often than UofA and UW, teams generally considered much more run-and-gun than the Bruins. And teams that are much more accurate from there than UCLA, as well.

This past game against OSU was a perfect example. The team went 3-15 from the field against the Beavers. And somewhat ironically, the only player who had a good shooting night from outside was Darren at 2-3. I say somewhat ironic, given that he spent much of the evening beating his defender off the dribble and getting to the line (14-14 on free throws is just awesome, btw). The rest of the team was a combined 1-12, despite the fact that the team was 24/39 from the floor on 2-point baskets. The point being, that unless somebody gets hot (see Shipp during the Bay-area road trip), it's generally not worth it for the team to chuck up a bunch of outside shots, given how effective Love, and the team as a whole, can be from inside the arc.

Anyway, time to get ready for "The Standard" next week. Very solid road trip, and here's hoping the Bruins come out fired up to start a new winning streak at Pauley.

UCLA hires Mike Linn as new S&C coach

Underbruin — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:31:28 -0000

Official UCLA press release can be found: here.

Linn was UCLA's strength and conditioning coach from 1999 to 2002, as well as a Bruin offensive lineman in the early 90's. Slightly worrisome is the fact that Linn's tenure spans basically the decline of the Bruin football program from a Rose Bowl to Toledo's firing. There were numerous reasons for the failure of that regime, though, and singling out S&C is generally a mistake when assigning blame or credit (just don't tell that to mgoblog's Brian Cook -- I keed, I keed). More information will hopefully be forthcoming as I dig a little deeper when I get the time. After his firing, Linn worked for several years at St. Louis University for a while, among other things. I'll leave you with the summary quote from the official release:

UCLA announced today the hiring of Mike Linn as the head strength and conditioning coach. Linn, who has both collegiate and corporate experience, previously served as the Bruin head strength and conditioning coach from 1999-2002. The 1993 UCLA graduate was a three-year starter along the offensive line on the Bruin football team and a member of three Bruin bowl teams. On another note, guys, can we please lower the minimum word requirements for diaries? The above didn't meet the 200 word-limit; no offense, but that's not the sort of thing that really belongs anywhere near a random comment in another thread.

Just saying. :)

Must-read on Coach Wooden over at FB&G

Underbruin — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:14:30 -0000

For those of you who are Lakers fans, you might be familiar with Forum Blue and Gold, an LA Lakers blog - and one of the best NBA blogs online, besides. Its main proprietor, Kurt, is currently taking a break. However, that means that some of the regular commentators are getting a chance at the front page themselves. The current top post is the recollection of one member, Gatinho, as Coach Wooden's aide during a recent charity auction event.

As soon as Coach Wooden was wheeled into the back room, these basketball luminaries were reduced to fans. They all stopped what they were doing to greet The Coach. He may not have ever been their Coach, but you couldn't tell who he knew intimately from those he knew in passing... As the meet and greet portion of the event ended, the guests were sat in chairs as the Legends and Lakers made their way down the red carpet. It became very obvious that a majority of the folks were there to see and hear from one person. They rose to their feet as Coach Wooden walked down the red carpet.

The whole thing is really a must-read, and shows how students of the game - be they stars past and present, or casual fans - understand the greatness of John Wooden. Here's hoping the Bruins continue to do THE Coach proud for the remainder of the season, and in the days ahead. They've got one heck of a lofty ideal to which they can aspire.

Go Bruins!

Scot Loeffler, Ryan Mallett not happening

Underbruin — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:48:30 -0000

Don't think this has been mentioned anywhere else here, but according to Dohn over at his Inside UCLA blog, Ryan Mallett is not coming to UCLA due to the fact that the Bruins are not hiring former UM QB coach Scot Loeffler:

"(Attending UCLA) was possible in the early stages, but not anymore,'' Mallet said. "My coach at Michigan [Loeffler] didn't really get looked at much. He was interviewed, but he didn't get the job, and I just feel comfortable with what I've been through with him."

A tad odd to base your choice of school solely on where your former QB coach ends up, but that's his call. It's in some ways more interesting that it appears Loeffler is also totally out of the running for pretty much any position, assuming this information holds for the rest of Neuheisal's hiring process. I know he had kind of dropped off the radar screen a tad, but I was unaware that he had been completely nixed. Obviously, Ryan Mallett is probably not the world's most definitive source on UCLA hiring decisions, but it sounds like he and Loeffler are pretty darn close, so this seems quite legit.

Ah well - as many have said, it's not as if the cupboard is totally bare here at QB (BO/PC as the now, and Forcier/Crissman as the future, have plenty of potential). Though I do think Loeffler could have been pretty good, his record is a tad more spotty than his press might indicate. Borrowing the stats from a previous diary comment I made:

Loeffler worked for Central Michigan as the QB coach for 2000 and 2001. The year before he was hired, in 1999, CMU was 53rd in the country, at 218.2 yards per game. They completed 53.4% of their passes, for about 13.8 yards per completion. In 2000, CMU completed 51.2% of their passes, 11.7 yards per completion. However, a bit more digging shows their passing leader for the season, Derrick Vickers, was a freshman. 2001 shows a different problem - Vickers got hurt about halfway through the year, and his replacement, Derek Gorney was... not so good (74/150 - 49%, for 831 yrds, 5 TDs, 7 INTs). Before he was hurt, Vickers wasn't great, but he was servicable (116/211 - 55%, for 1156 yds, 7 TDs, 6 INTs). He played against a couple of excellent pass defenses: Eastern Kentucky (DII, true, but 3rd in the country that year) and Michigan State (19th). However, he also had a very weak game against an awful, AWFUL Ohio pass defense (109th) - CMU lost 34-3.
[all statistics found through the NCAA's stats website]

Upon review, it seems Loeffler was so/so at working with players that weren't obviously talented. He took a below-average QB and turned him into an almost-but-not-quite average QB. Granted, CMU's lack of talent and potential playcalling differences could factor in between '00 and '01, but for simplicity let's assume their about equal. As such, that's a moderate talent increase. So it may be that UCLA can not only do better than Loeffler, but they may be able to do much better, depending on which coach they end up hiring.

Then again, maybe not. We await your OC decision with baited breath, Coach Neu! :)