SB Nation User Blog: bruinhoo

Syracuse falls in exhibition opener

bruinhoo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:14:06 -0000

Syracuse falls in exhibition opener

Just a reminder to all of us not to take the upcoming week of UCLA Basketball for granted.

NCAA enforcement strikes again...

bruinhoo — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:50:50 -0000

NCAA enforcement strikes again...

Oklahoma State All-American WR Dez Bryant was ruled to be ineligible this morning by the NCAA, for the notoriously grave crime of misleading NCAA investigators.

Because as we all know, the NCAA never allows an athlete or athletic department to get away from lying, misleading, or obstructing investigations into allegations of the above! Ever!

For Those Looking To Head Up North: Stanford Ticket Information

bruinhoo — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:06:46 -0000

Rebumped. GO BRUINS. -N

UPDATE - 10/2. CTO has returned a part of its ticket allotment to Stanford. As of 4pm, the Stanford ticket office has a limited number of tickets in the UCLA section remaining, specifically in the upper rows of section 226. Reserved seats elsewhere in the stadium, as well as general admission tickets do remain, and will remain available tomorrow morning at the stadium box office.

Bumped. Note if you are looking to get tickets in the UCLA section make sure you contact CTO as well. Let's swarm the Farm with a sea of Bruin blue. GO BRUINS.

Photo Credit: marvin51campbell (flickr)

For anybody thinking of making the trip to Palo Alto for Saturday's game that does not yet have tickets, Stanford does have tickets available for purchase online through this link.

General admission tickets are $12, while reserved tickets range from $20-$45 - UCLA section tickets (if available) are $20, and are located in the northeast corner of the stadium, between the GA section and the UCLA sideline. Tickets can be printed at home or picked up at will call day of game.

I don’t think the game will be a complete sell out (iirc, the Cal game 2 years ago is the only sellout at the new stadium), but between last night’s result and a greater excitement among Stanford fans this year, it could come close.

Seth Davis sits down with Coach Wooden

bruinhoo — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:06:40 -0000

Seth Davis sits down with Coach Wooden

Seth Davis recently made the trek to the SFV to visit Coach for an SI.com piece. A good read, showing Coach being himself, if showing his age more than Davis recalls from his last meeting with him in 2006.

WaPo on Ed O'Bannon

bruinhoo — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:10:00 -0000

As part of a series examining the life after retirement of various athletes, today's Washington Post has a rather lengthy piece on Ed O'Bannon. While Ed's life after basketball is not a new story for many of us on BN, it is an interesting read, discussing his post-NBA life playing overseas as well as his newcareer in Las Vegas.

As an aside, I am nearly certain that PAA was on the LAX-Dulles redeye that I just got off of.

UCLA v. Villanova: By The Numbers

bruinhoo — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:31:00 -0000

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

Well, didn't last night's finish take a few months off our our lives. After squeaking out a win in a game reminiscent of the second-round battles of recent years, our Bruins now face the real second-round game, against a Villanova wildcats team playing on its second home court.

Villanova enters Saturday's game with a 27-7 record, earning an at-large berth and the East region's #3 seed after finishing 4th in the Big East. In the Big East Tournament, the Wildcats edged out a one point victory against Marquette before losing to Louisville in the Semifinal round, 69-55. The Wildcats played a fairly difficult version of the unbalanced Big East schedule, with home-and-home matchups with Syracuse, Marquette, and Providence; in conference, they played 10 games against NCAA tournament teams, 12 games against tournament competitors overall, with a 6-6 record (Entering the week, UCLA had played 14 games against NCAA tournament competitors, with a 7-7 record).

Villanova and UCLA have faced ~~two~~ three common opponents: Texas, DePaul and Notre Dame, with similar results. Villanova lost to Texas, 67-58 in New York on December 9, won at DePaul, 74-72, and defeated Notre Dame in their penultimate regular season game, 77-60 in South Bend. The Bruins lost to Texas in Austin by a 68-64 score, beat DePaul 72-54 in the Wooden Classic , and beat Notre Dame, 89-63 in Pauley. [edit to include DePaul, HT to godblesstyus]

Now to the numbers...

RPI UCLA: #33, Villanova: #13

Pomeroy UCLA: #10, Villanova: #19

Sagarin UCLA: #17, Villanova: #16

The variance among the different computer ratings in relation to the treatment of UCLA is certainly notable here. While the RPI of the Bruins compared to Villanova reinforces the seeding advantage held by the Wildcats, the other, more predictive rating systems see a much closer matchup.

One quick note about the three rating systems which I cite here. Each of the ratings uses a different methodology, and a different way of measuring success in order to come up with a ranking. The RPI uses a formula based upon the win % of each team, plus the win % of each of its opposing teams, and the win % of the opponent's opponents. This formula does not look at how each team earns its record (does not look at score margin, turnovers or anything other than Wins and Losses). Ken Pomeroy's formula, rather than focusing on only W-L, uses a complex set of game data which aims to predict future performance, rather than accounting for how good or bad a team has performed to date. The Sagarin ranking that I post here is actually a synthesis of two separate ratings which Sagarin calculates; one being an RPI-like formula taking into account only wins and losses, the other taking into score margin rather than a team's record.

Sagarin considers the latter of his formulas to be the better predictor of future performance. To illustrate the different results which arise, and to give us additonal points of reference going into tomorrow afternoon, here are the the ratings broken down by formula.

Sagarin Won-Loss: UCLA: #21, Villanova: #10

Sagarin Predictive: UCLA: #10, Villanova: #19

While the Sagarin Predictive formula, from what I can gather, is functionally quite different from Pomeroy, they both come up with the same relative ranking of these teams, and both find UCLA to be the better team, though by a slight margin.

Next is a look at the efficiency metrics and pace of play for the Bruins and Villanova.

Villanova

* Offense: 114.3 points/100 possessions (#24 in D-1)

* Defense: 91.4 points/100 possessions (#27 in D-1)

* Pace: 68.8 possessions/40 minutes (#74 in D-1)

UCLA

* Offense: 120.6 points/100 possessions (#3 in D-1)

* Defense: 92.8 points/100 possessions (#43 in D-1)

* Pace: 66.4 possessions/40 minutes (#163 in D-1)

As rye noted in his post on Villanova, the Wildcats play at a noticeably faster pace than do the Bruins, gaining about two and a half additional possessions per game. Their success has also been well balances among both sides of the court.

Using the above efficiency measures, together with the average pace of the two teams' play, the average game score of each team, based upon an equal schedule composed of average Division 1 teams would be:

Villanova: 79-63

UCLA: 80-62

By all measures, tomorrow's game looks to be a tight battle; no matter who comes out on top, I would expect the result to come down to the final possession or two, where I hope that a repeat of last night's last second defensive lockdown will allow our Bruins to spend a few extra days on the east coast and a trip up I-95 to Boston.

Pomeroy projects the Bruins to win a nail-biter, 74-73, accounting for Villanova's semi-home court advantage, with the Wildcats holding a 47% chance of winning. Sagarin's combined formula predicts a 4-point Villanova win, if the game is considered to be played on their home court, while the predictive formula alone calls for a 1-point Villanova win. Go Bruins!

UCLA v. VCU: By The Numbers

bruinhoo — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:37:47 -0000

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

For those of you that were not around at tournament time last year, I wrote up a series of posts, one before each game, looking at the numbers underlying the performance of our upcoming opponent, with a strong focus on Pomeroy and Sagarin's ratings and adjusted statistics. As this seemed to create good mojo last year (through the first two weeks, at least), I thought that I would try again.

As has been the subject of much discussion on this site since Sunday night, we will be facing VCU tomorrow night in Philly. I will leave talk of seeding and upsets for other posts.

Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) enters the tournament with a 24-9 record, having won the Colonial Athletic Association regular season and tournament championships. VCU defeated Georgia State, ODU, and George Mason to earn the CAA's automatic bid, and the east region's 11 seed. The Rams are riding a 5 game win streak, following a Bracketbusters loss @ Nevada on February 20.

VCU has played 2 games against NCAA tourney teams: a 73-69 home win vs. Akron, and an 81-70 loss to Oklahoma in Oklahoma City. The Bruins and Rams share no common opponents.

Now to the numbers...

RPI UCLA: #33, VCU: #50

Pomeroy Rating UCLA: #9, VCU: #56

Sagarin Rating UCLA: #17, VCU: #74

One of the things that quickly comes to mind when looking at the various computer ratings is where we rate compared to our seeding, and the variance between the RPI and other computer ratings when it comes to UCLA. While I expect a hard fought game on both sides, which likely will be close throughout, it is not the tossup-to-clear upset pick that many in the press would like us to believe. VCU is a good team, but a win tomorrow would be a major upset.

Next is a look at the efficiency metrics and pace of play for the Bruins and VCU.

VCU

* Offense: 108.0 points/100 possessions (#74 in D-1)

* Defense: 93.6 points/possession (#49 in D-1)

* Pace: 67.1 possessions/40 minutes

VCU's pace of play most closely approximates Cal among this season's UCLA opponents, though VCU's defensive metrics rate better than those of Cal (along with a weaker offense)

UCLA

* Offense: 120.9 points/100 possessions (#3 in D-1)

* Defense: 92.6 points/100 possessions (#41 in D-1)

* Pace: 66.6 possessions/40 minutes

VCU: 72-63

UCLA: 81-62

This game will be a much greater opening round test than our Bruins are used to, only Josh Shipp among this year's players has played a 1st round game against anything but a lower-tier automatic qualifier. Tomorrow will not be the light warmup that we have become accustomed to the past 3 seasons.

Pomeroy is projecting a 75-66 Bruin victory, with a 20% chance of VCU pulling the upset, while Sagarin's formula predicts a 7-8 point UCLA win. A close 1st round game, which could be thrown into question by another lackadaisical start, or DC's health status.

Examining the efficiency of the Bruin lineup

bruinhoo — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:04:30 -0000

Or, as SJH asks, I shall deliver. The linked post raised the issue of comparison between the efficiency of our starting 5 and the bench, as well as comparing particular players on a per minute basis. In light of this, I have calculated the per minute statistics in 5 categories [points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocked shots] for each of the scholarship players on this year's roster. I will present two sets of these statistics: One set consist of the entire season to date, while the second set reflects games played since the Pac-10 opener (Pac-10 play + Notre Dame). The first set has the advantage of a larger sample size, while the latter better reflects the state of the team at this point, as well as the stronger level of competition which the team now faces.

The season-long data set:

Points/Rebounds/Assists/Steals/Blocks (per minute played)

Collison: 28 games, 31.5 mpg: 0.47    0.07    0.16    0.052    0.005
Holiday: 28 games, 26.6 mpg: 0.34    0.14    0.13    0.055    0.017
Shipp: 26 games, 28.3 mpg:    0.48    0.11    0.06    0.046    0.014
Dragovic: 27 games, 22.6 mpg: 0.39    0.16    0.06    0.036    0.015
Aboya: 28 games, 27.0 mpg:     0.37    0.22    0.02    0.030    0.008
Roll: 28 games, 17.8 mpg:         0.42    0.08    0.08    0.036    0.016
Keefe: 27 games, 15.0 mpg:     0.20    0.24    0.02    0.030    0.010
Lee: 23 games, 11.0 mpg:       0.31    0.14    0.06    0.052    0.079
Gordon: 28 games, 10.7 mpg: 0.35    0.33    0.02    0.060    0.040
Anderson: 28 games, 8.7 mpg: 0.29    0.07    0.13    0.049    0.020
Morgan: 18 games, 5.6 mpg:     0.46    0.20    0.04    0.010    0.100

The statistics dating from the start of conference play:

Points/Rebounds/Assists/Steals/Blocks (per minute played)

Collison: 16 games, 33.2 mpg: 0.45    0.07    0.14    0.041    0.004
Holiday: 16 games, 26.8 mpg:   0.29    0.13    0.14    0.042    0.012
Shipp: 16 games, 30.1 mpg:      0.48    0.09    0.06    0.031    0.015
Dragovic: 16 games, 26.3 mpg: 0.42    0.16    0.05    0.043    0.007
Aboya: 16 games, 28.2 mpg:     0.38    0.22    0.03    0.024    0.009
Roll: 16 games, 17.9 mpg:         0.39    0.06    0.07    0.042    0.021
Keefe: 15 games, 11.7 mpg:     0.18    0.23    0.01    0.021    0.007
Gordon: 16 games, 10.8 mpg: 0.33    0.26    0.02    0.052    0.029
Lee: 12 games, 8.9 mpg:           0.21    0.15    0.03    0.056    0.019
Anderson: 16 games, 7.8 mpg: 0.23    0.06    0.14    0.048    0.008
Morgan: 7 games, 3.7 mpg:       0.54    0.12    0.04    0.000    0.038

The statistics do shed light on a few areas of interest which have come up on this site form time to time. On a per-minute basis, Drew Gordon has been the team's most efficient rebounder, as well as the most efficient in creating steals and blocked shots. Josh Shipp has been the team's most efficient scorer, slightly besting DC. After a slow start to the season, Nicola Dragovic has become the team's 3rd most efficient scorer.

For all of his recent, much discussed struggles, Jrue Holiday has been the equal of DC in creating assists and steals on the defensive side of the ball. Malcolm Lee rates equal to or better than the other Bruin wings in rebounding, steals and blocked shots. James Keefe rates as the #2 rebounder on the team, but rates as the least efficient scoring threat, as well as on the lower end of the list in steals and blocks.

While the conclusions which one takes from these stats may differ, I do think that a case can be made for giving Drew Gordon and Malcolm Lee additional playing time. The trick is juggling the lineup as to minimize any harm to the team's scoring ability, while realizing the potential benefit in rebounding and in these (admittedly limited) defensive metrics.

A Look into the numbers: why do we win or lose?

bruinhoo — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:34:49 -0000

Bumped. GO BRUINS. - N

Ok, so I do not have a definite set of reasons for the ups and downs in this basketball season, or a roadmap showing what our warriors need to do to finish this season with a Pauley banner-raising ceremony. What I do have is a look at how the game statistics have differed between Bruin wins and losses over the course of this season. Much of what I have discovered falls into the "no duh" category, while other sets of data had surprisingly little correlation to game outcome

I Imagine that few here would be surprised to hear that the most significant variance between Bruin wins and losses has come thanks to the SPTR's, relating to the number of fouls called, and opportunities at the line for both teams.

FTm-FTa, FT% (Fouls awarded) [per game averages]

UCLA win:

UCLA: 14.1-19.6, .719 (17.0)

Opponent: 11.3-17.1, .663 (16.8)

UCLA loss:

UCLA: 8.0-11.9, .675 (15.3)

Opponent: 16.7-21.4, .780 (19.0)

In games which the Bruins have won, each team has, on average, been called for an approximately equal number of fouls, with the Bruins attempting 2.5 more free throws than their opponent. In Bruin losses, the opposing team has drawn slightly less than 4 fouls more than the Bruins, but have had an even greater knack for getting to the line, attempting 9.5 more free throws than the Bruins in those games. The idea that more fouls + fewer free throws = lose is not exactly thinking outside of the box, but having a basis for the idea can't hurt.

Another statistical category which shows a noticeable variance among wins and losses is UCLA Defensive Rebounding/opponent Offensive rebounding. While success in offensive rebounding displays no correlation to winning (the Bruins have fractionally outperformed in losses over victories on the offensive end), the average number of defensive rebounds varies greatly between Bruin wins and losses, as do offensive rebounds by the opposing team.

UCLA

Win: 31.1 rebounds/game (21.35 defensive)

Loss: 25.9 rebounds/game (15.86 defensive)

Opponent:

UCLA win: 26.6 rebounds/game (7.9 offensive)

UCLA loss: 25.0 rebounds/game (8.7 offensive)

In victory, the Bruins have brought in an average of 5.5 more defensive rebounds (a whopping 34.6% more) than in losses, while opponents have recovered nearly 1 more offensive rebound in games which they win (10% more) despite totaling fewer rebounds in sum in victories over the ben ball warriors.

Three-point shooting holds another statistical variance between wins and losses. There is a certain logic to the idea that a losing team will shoot more 3-pointers in an attempt to make up ground, particularly late in the game. In UCLA's case, the numbers bear this out. Interestingly, UCLA's opponents also attempted more 3-point shots in games which the Bruins fell.

3PTm-3PTa, 3PT% (per game average)

UCLA:

Win: 7.5-18.1, .416

Loss: 7.6-20.7, .366

Opponent:

UCLA win: 4.7-14.0, .333

UCLA loss: 6.7-16.9, .398

While the number of made 3-point shots remains roughly the same for the Bruins win or lose, they attempt 2.6 more shots to do so. This suggests that, even with the long-range proficiency of several of our players, jacking up a bunch of 3's is not necessarily the best strategy when the team is locked in a tight battle. Allowing a hot shooting opponent to take a high number of shots from behind the arc, to no surprise, is also correlated to Bruin losses.

While other other statistics show a strong correlation to wins and losses, such as shooting % and assist/turnover ratio, the number of shots attempted show very little variation among wins and losses, for both the Bruins and opponents.

FGm-FGa, FG%; Assist/TO ratio

UCLA

Win: 29.2-56.1, .520; 1.32/1

Loss: 25.7-56.6, .455; 1.03/1

Opponent:

UCLA win: 22.0-55.4, .437; 0.60/1

UCLA loss: 24.7-55.1, .493; 1.06/1

Many of the lessons which looking at the numbers associated with wins as compared to losses are basic and rather obvious (Shoot better! Protect the ball!...), there are other statistical variations which may be of interest in watching the last few weeks of this season play out. While taking care to note that correlation with a result does not necessarily imply causation, as well as the capriciousness of the SPTR's, it can be helpful to know what the effect of foul call distribution has been, as well as the importance of defensive rebounding and the knowledge that attempting to shoot out of a long-range slump in volume is not always the best way to win a game.

Tyler Lamb targeted by racist taunts

bruinhoo — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:13:32 -0000

Tyler Lamb targeted by racist taunts

C/O 2010 verbal commit Tyler Lamb, along with a Mater Dei teammate, were subjected to racist heckling and taunts throughout their game @ Servite HS last Friday. Behavior by the Servite students was stated to include "monkey noises" and questions regarding the parentage of Lamb and teammate Gary Franklin throughout the game.

I am not one to crack down on booing/heckling, even at the HS level, but this is just wrong. Not sure what was in these student's minds, but clearly their parents still have work to do (as well as to watch less European soccer).

(HT to Deadspin