|
by Cameron Blount
Steve
Lavin.
To some of
us Bruin fans, those two, seemingly harmless groups of letters rattle
against our eardrums like tiny razorblades that slice with every
syllable. And yet, mention it to others, and the name brings forth an
army of fierce protectors, a small but no less fanatic group of
supporters that are willing to defend the man’s honor with fists no less
strong than an immaculately plastered head of hair.
How can two groups of people so diametrically
opposed to one another inhabit the hallowed floors of Pauley Pavilion
without creating a scene akin to an LL Cool J concert?
The answer to that question must lie in the strong
fabric of the Bruin spirit, answers this humble columnist. And yet, as
an avid UCLA sports fan, I’ve heard the rumblings of dissention grow
louder and louder since the departure of Coach Harrick and lately it
seems that the two factions have crept ever nearer to the proverbial
breaking point. Just visit a Bruin message board and count how many
times you have to click the mouse to scroll down the page before you
come to a debate on some aspect of Lavin’s credibility.
If you have to count once you’re lucky.
But, rather than lapsing into the usual rhetoric
that pits ‘sweet Sixteen five of the last six years!’ against ‘a
politician under oath has more consistency than we do!’, I thought I’d
sit down and try to scientifically dissect Lavin’s performance against
that of his predecessors. I’ll try to be impartial, but not nearly to
the extent of the local LA paper (ßinsert facetious snort here). For
statistical purposes, I’ll use data from the post John Wooden years
because, seriously now, is it fair to compare any coach to the fabled
Wizard of Westwood?
We’ll start with the most simplistic form of all
statistics: win-loss record.
Gene
Bartow:
1975-76: 28-4, 13-1; .875 overall
1976-77: 24-5, 11-3; .831 overall
Gary
Cunningham:
1977-78: 25-3, 14-0; .893 overall
1978-79: 25-5, 15-3; .833 overall
Larry
Brown:
1979-80: 22-10, 12-6; .688 overall
1980-81: 20-7, 13-5; .741 overall
Larry
Farmer:
1981-82: 21-6, 14-4; .778 overall
1982-83: 23-6, 15-3; .793 overall
1983-84: 17-11, 10-8; .607 overall
Walt
Hazzard:
1984-85: 21-12, 12-6; .636 overall
1985-86: 15-14, 9-9; .517 overall
1986-87: 25-7, 14-4; .781 overall
1987-88: 16-14, 12-6; .533 overall
Jim
Harrick:
1988-89: 21-10, 13-5; .677 overall
1989-90: 22-11, 11-7; .667 overall
1990-91: 23-9, 11-7; .719 overall
1991-92: 28-5, 16-2; .848 overall
1992-93: 22-11, 11-7; .667 overall
1993-94: 21-7, 13-5; .750 overall
1994-95: 32-1, 17-1; .979 overall (National Champions,
Westwood is subsequently sacked)
1995-96: 23-8, 16-2; .742 overall
Steve
Lavin:
1996-97: 24-8, 15-3; .750 overall
1997-98: 24-9, 12-6; .727 overall
1998-99: 22-9, 12-6; .710 overall
1999-00: 21-12, 10-8; .636 overall
2000-01: 23-9, 14-4; .718 overall
2001-02: 21-12, 11-7; .636 overall
What’s the first thing that jumps out in looking
at these numbers?
For one, I thank the almighty Bruin every day that
I wasn’t a diehard UCLA basketball fan during the mid-1980s. If I was,
I’d have died of a heart attack somewhere around 1987 or be lying
peacefully somewhere in a fetal position still trying to recover.
What else? Well, at least as Lavin is concerned,
there isn’t much to be positive about here. One can point to Lavin’s
steadily declining winning percentage as an ominous predictor. To put it
simply, once Harrick’s boys left things started to get ugly. Throw on
top of this a recruiting class that bears poorly in national ranking and
the perennial early departures of UCLA’s best players (and not all for
the NBA, one must point out) and one could easily say that next year
could prove disastrous. A dire prediction, but what else is new?
What is worse, Lavin’s total winning percentage in
his first six seasons fares no better than any other UCLA coach save
Walt Hazzard (referenced before as Fetal Bringer),
statistically-speaking the worst coach in UCLA Basketball history. Jim
Harrick’s first six seasons come the closest to Lavin’s at .723 (as
opposed to Steve’s .696), but, unfortunately for Lavin, the next year
Harrick won it all. At this point I know what you’re thinking. That sure
would be nice, but let’s try to be realistic here.
Now let’s turn to overall titles won. Well, there
really isn’t much to be positive about in this category either. Here’s
the breakdown:
Bartow: 2
Pac-10 Championships (2 seasons).
Cunningham: 2 Pac-10 Championships (2 seasons).
Brown:
none (2 seasons)
Farmer: 1
Pac-10 Championship (3 seasons)
Hazzard: 1
Pac-10 Championship, 1 NIT Championship (4 seasons)
Harrick: 3
Pac-10 Championships, 1 National Championship (8 seasons)
Lavin: 1
Pac-10 Championship (6 seasons)
In twice as many seasons, Lavin has just as many
titles as Farmer and one less than Hazzard, who were both, not
incidentally, shown the door long before their seventh season. And when
you consider that Lavin’s only title came in his first season with a
team that still had three players from the 1995 National Championship
team, one can’t help but acknowledge at least in part the dire
prediction that many are portending for the upcoming season.
I’d like to add a side note at this point: I admit
that this article has turned into a veritable diatribe against UCLA’s
current basketball coach. But let me reiterate that I’m trying to be
impartial here. The numbers don’t lie. So, with that disclaimer in mind,
let’s continue.
How about some hard-nosed statistics, you ask?
Well, I hate to disappoint, so let’s look at total team offense.
Bartow:
.49 FG%, 83.7 PPG (2 seasons).
Cunningham: .51 FG%, 84.2 PPG (2 seasons).
Brown: .54
FG%, 82.7 PPG (2 seasons)
Farmer:
.52 FG%, 76.4 PPG (3 seasons)
Hazzard:
.50 FG%, 73 PPG (4 seasons)
Harrick:
.50 FG%, 83.9 PPG (8 seasons)
Lavin: .49
FG%, 78 PPG (6 seasons)
Again, not good. UCLA’s field goal percentage in
the past six seasons ties for the worst among any coach since Bartow
during the 1975-76, 1976-77 seasons. Points-per-game exhibits a small
ray of light in this otherwise gloomy montage of statistics, where Lavin
finds himself in the middle-back of the pack ahead of Farmer and Hazzard
- not the best of company, but let’s go on.
Overall
team defense:
Bartow:
.44 FGA%, 72.5 PPGA (2 seasons).
Cunningham: .44 FGA%, 68.9 PPGA (2 seasons).
Brown: .45
FGA%, 71.5 PPGA (2 seasons)
Farmer:
.47 FGA%, 67 PPGA (3 seasons)
Hazzard:
.46 FGA%, 68.9 PPGA (4 seasons)
Harrick:
.45 FGA%, 76.1 PPGA (8 seasons)
Lavin: .43
FGA%, 73.1 PPGA (6 seasons)
No doubt about it, Lavin shows his strength here.
In the field goal-percentage-against category Steve Lavin has the best
defensive average among all coaches during the post-Wooden era. A
surprising statistic, I admit, but credit must be given where it is due.
The points-per-game-against figures seem to somewhat contradict the
percentage-against statistic, but I’ll give Lavin the benefit of the
doubt on this one. He is doing something right on the defensive end of
the floor. Score one for the Lavinators.
Now let’s turn to our final statistic: post-season
tournament record. I choose this statistic because, for the most part,
supporters of Lavin contend that he “wins when it counts.” That is, his
teams unequivocally find a way to win in the NCAA tournament (save
against a certain religious school in Michigan, but who’s keeping
track?). Hence, the hypothesis is that Lavin should separate himself
from his predecessors in this all-important statistical category. Here
are the numbers on total postseason wins/losses among all coaches since
Gandalf the Powder Blue:
Bartow:
5-2 (2 postseason tries in 2 seasons)
Cunningham: 3-2 (2 postseason tries in 2 seasons)
Brown: 5-2
(2 postseason tries in 2 seasons)
Farmer:
0-1 (1 postseason try in 3 seasons)
Hazzard:
1-1 (1 postseason try in 4 seasons. NIT not included because, honestly,
do any of us acknowledge its existence?)
Harrick:
13-7 (8 postseason tries in 8 seasons)
Lavin:
11-6 (6 postseason tries in 6 seasons)
And the hypothesis proves true. Lavin does have a
regrettable and admirable (depending on what side of the fence you’re
on) penchant for getting his team into the NCAA tournament and winning
games. Only once in 6 seasons has he exited after the first round of the
tournament and he has never in six seasons been denied entry into
postseason play. His tournament winning percentage at .65 is identical
to Harrick’s who, not incidentally, would probably still be at UCLA had
he not eaten one too many dinners on the Athletic Department’s personal
tab.
What does all of this mean, you ask? In essence,
this entire exercise really only proves one thing for certain: the Lavin
Dilemma runs like a fault beneath the foundation of the Morgan Center
and, to continue the metaphor, if Lavin steps too far in either
direction an earthquake will likely ensue.
The question really becomes this: what do you
expect out of UCLA basketball? Are you one with a predilection for
championships or would you rather see the team habitually make it to the
third round of the NCAA tournament? Do you want consistency through the
regular season or consistency in postseason play?
I’ll close this piece with one final assertion. As
one watches national broadcasts of UCLA basketball a certain overly
animated broadcaster tends to hammer us over the head with the following
statistic: there is only one other coach in NCAA division I basketball
to have made the Sweet Sixteen 5 out of the last 6 years: Coach Mike
Krzyzewski of Duke University. But there is more to this story that is
not divulged. In those 6 seasons Coach K has 2 sweet sixteens, one
regional final, one national final, 4 ACC conference championships, and
1 National Championship. Does this render the comparison laughable?
Again, the decision is up to the fan. No other Coach but Coach K has
accomplished such a feat in the past six seasons. But, on the other side
of the coin, no other coach has had so much success and had only one
title to show for it.
What’s the verdict? That’s not for me to say.
I report, you decide.
Article written by Cameron Blount,
cblountus@yahoo.com
In my spare time I actually bleed powder blue and
gold. I’m not kidding, it’s a serious health problem.
Note: All statistics taken from
www.uclabruins.com
|
