In Offense of Jeff Bzdelik
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jan 23, 2011 8:16 PM EST
Email
PrintBemused by the naiveté of a post actually affirming this season of Wake hoops even looking towards the future, I feel compelled to assess Wake's basketball's historic failure under Jeff Bdzelik by examining the team's larger body of work rather than cherrypicking arbitrarily curiously selected stats. using small sample sizes & often mutating categories & benchmarks. I don't say this to be rude, but if you reduce the two line paragraphs, and assess the numbers isolated by the previous commenter, we're essentially reducing Bdzelik's dumpster fire of a season to the shooting percentages during the Duke game at home, point-in-the-paint numbers against Georgia Tech, points in the paint, off turnovers, & off fast breaks against Maryland & Virginia Tech, strange tangents drawn between the numbers of our opponents playing each other, and chalking up what's left to questionable officiating. This ignores completely both crushing losses against the likes of Stetson, Wilmington, Presbyterian, Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth, and Winthrop - and a squeak of a win against UNC-Greensboro - and Wake's aggregate margin of victory loss against our ACC brethren. So I don't know about you, but I think only wildly unscientific conclusions follow sample sizes that arbitrarily selected, small, and ever morphing.
This season has been abysmal in historic proportions, and I think given our patience and the hard work of predecessors like Skip Prosser & Dino Gaudio during the upward trajectory of the Wake Forest basketball program, and the sufficient window of opportunity Coach Buzzkill's had adapt & improve over the course of 2/3 of a season, mostly against the very lowest of the low mid-majors, and the weakest the ACC has to offer, Jeff Bdzelik's standard of competitiveness is not remotely on par with Wake Forest's standard of excellence. Wake Forest fans/alums deserve better, and we should demand more.
Starting over/successfully rebuilding one season too late, with a coach worthy of Wake Forest, is infinitely preferable to eking out several seasons on the margins – in the middle of the pack at best, or as historically abominable ACC doormats – and tarring the legacies of Prosser & Gaudio, & all of their hard-work that elevated our program’s attractiveness to young studs, under a coach who will give us, at best, a marginal product on par with a rebuilt Air Force or Colorado in an ACC context, and at worst a historically bad one.
In order to objectively assess the state of the team as it has imploded run its course over the course of the season, especially in the context of a season where we have regularly found ourselves out of genuine contention early & faced second-teams (especially against our ACC opponents, where we are now losing by 26 points per game on average), many of our numbers are undisciplined and pockmarked by peaks & troughs more due to the fact that we are so bad at this point, we're generally playing against more relaxed defenses more often than our ACC counterparts simply because the leads are that insurmountable, and we are just that bad. Thus, as we lose our in-conference games with a whimper by a margin approaching 30 points, our ACC opponents simply aren't having to compete as strongly or consistently for a statistically relevant large portion (minutes) of these games.
So, here is, what I think, is a substantially more systematic, scientific, & accurate way of judging the merits of this season, & whether we genuinely are improving: Simply look at our margins of loss to assess whether Jeff Bdzelik has situationally adapted competently - e.g., whether the offense has statistically gotten any better over the course of these first 20 (of 31) games, and whether the defense is keeping opponents more honest & tangibly improving.
The core issue at stake is, where do we draw the line between rebuilding, & being artlessly flogged but are trying to mask the distinction between genuine rebuilding & simply being flattened by saying that any kind of losing still qualifies as rebuilding unconditionally.
Here's what rebuilding means to me:
1) Winning Against Low Mid-Major Teams: These are teams that our youngsters cut their teeth with at worst a hiccup, but certainly not programs that we consistently have to recover from.
State of the Program: We're not talking George Mason, we're talking losses to Stetson, Wilmington, Presbyterian, Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth, and Winthrop by an average margin of loss of over 12 points.
2) Followed by Credible Losses Against In-Conference Programs: E.g., the score is honest enough that young players aren't having to ask "What's the purpose of any of this?", like they're on record wondering aloud this season.
State of the Program: We're losing to the weakest in the ACC (Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, & NC State) by an average margin of loss of over 24 points. Factor in the game against Duke at home, & we're losing by over 26 points.
3) Punctuated By Getting Better Gradually: This has to checker the season in the right direction (up), and is signified at least by improvements in the areas the hired coach purports to be strongest at (point-generating ball movement and defense).
State of the Program: The offense looks terrible, and after extensive time to adapt during the course of playing our weakest opponents, it actually got *worse* after losing to Stetson and Virginia Commonwealth:
3a) In our first 7 games we averaged 72 points.
3b) In the following 7 games, we averaged 69 points.
3c) Regarding defense - an ostensible 'strength' for Coach Buzzkill - after an opportunity window of 15 games against the lowest of the low mid-majors to take inventory of injuries, adjust accordingly, and credibly improve, our defense has shown no improvement to speak of, and actually looks worse. In fact, our average margin of loss against the weakest ACC programs except for Duke, has *more than doubled* (12 point per/game average margin of loss against low mid-majors, 26 point per/game average margin of loss against Georgia Tech, Maryland, NC State, Duke, and Virginia Tech). It's understandable to lose by wider margins against ACC than low mid-major programs, but the margin of loss should never more than double, especially in a world where the coach is purportedly, relatively improving the on-court product.
20 games into the season, with only 11 left, we're long past the point of "it's too soon to tell." What's more, the fact that the coach has the gall to act diffidently bemused towards a fan base/alums he has alienated by coldly distancing himself from both us and his woefully inadequate on-court product when we fans/alums are furious with what he's doing to a program that we stood by patiently while Prosser and Gaudio in good faith spent so much sweat over the course of so many precious years improving to the level our basketball program ought to be (tangibly ascending towards Maryland/Duke/UNC, rather than crashing through the floor, losing on a historic level), simply makes it even less credible to chalk this one up to rebuilding à la "eh, there's no way to draw distinctions in kinds of losing/losses over the course of 2/3 of a season. <Throw hands up>, all losing is rebuilding."
Most agree that Bzdelik was a whiff of a hire, and half agree that he modestly turned things around at Air Force & Colorado, but given the way we were rebuilding, with all of the attractiveness that this program has increasingly had to stud recruits due to both our sexy system of play to those who wanted the best opportunity at maximizing their chance at going pro (either NBA or Europe) and our near-elite reputation for at least dominating during the regular season (instead of at best playing a plodding offense, a polite defense, and doing as well as a turned-around Air Force or Colorado - e.g., dwelling on the margins at best in the middle of the pack in the ACC, and at-worst setting records for scale of atrociousness), is Bzdelik's most competitive standard remotely on par with Wake’s standard of excellence?
I don't think so at all. First, all we needed was a revolution in in-game coaching, not a revolution in our overall system or approach. Now, all we have is even worse in-game coaching, & a lesser 'system' that's tearing the program to pieces, and threatening to vaporize all that we had & all the positives that Prosser & Gaudio left the next heir to the program in terms of what we could offer stud recruits (which all universally agreed was Bzdelik's weakest attribute even before his reign began). Second, if what we have to look forward to relative to seasons under Dino Gaudio is waiting unreasonably long for Coach Buzzkill to learn how to adjust to who he's playing, & even then, only making us as good as a Wake program with lesser talent than during the Prosser/Gaudio period using a subpar offensive/defensive system to be about as good as an Air Force or a Colorado in the ACC, what we're 'looking forward to' is taking a gargantuan step backwards from what we had before. Third, even if we project the most naively blossoming future, it's genuinely impossible to with any credibility because after 2/3 of a season habitated by an average margin of loss against low mid-majors like the Stetson Hatters exceeding 12 points per game, followed by increasing/worsening offense and defense, Jeff Bzdelik is astonishingly slower than Dino Gaudio ever was at adapting & improving.
We're in the ACC, supposedly the top BCS basketball conference, is 2/3 of a season against the statistically weakest opponents on schedule a reasonable sample size to measure a coach's standard of competitiveness in terms of his ability to adapt and improve the state of the program this season and looking to the future? I think all but the most bizarrely infatuated with Bdzelik consider that plenty time to show what you offer.
The future of the basketball program - our crown jewel program - is at stake, this isn't like talking about whether or not to hire/fire a new frolf coach. We ought to demand more
The content of FanPosts is not necessarily the opinions, thoughts or beliefs of Blogger So Dear.
6 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am a little confused how you can put George Mason and VCU in different categories in point 1, considering they are in the same conference. On a similar note, neither Richmond nor Winthrop are low-major programs. They are some of the most successful mid-major programs of the last few years (and only are labeled mid-major status because of money).
As far as getting better gradually, I would argue that the team has improved since the beginning of the season. The GT game was one of the worst in the history of Wake Forest but some other than that game, I have seen some improvement.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/wake-forest/game_stats
Check out turnover percentage. It was awful at the start of the season (upwards of 30%) but the team has dropped that down a bit (still at a bad level though). Same with offensive rebounding. We were getting killed on the glass early in the season but are slowly bringing that number down.
Obviously I am not happy with this season but I am going to wait until the season is over to make up my mind on Bzdelik. If I see the team working hard and improving, I may be in favor of Bzdelik getting one more season. If not, I would not be that upset to see him go.
by JoshuaR on Jan 23, 2011 9:34 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Other Than TO% Stabilizing & Your Eyeball Test..
The distinction between GMU & VCU is minor – both GMU & VCU have reached the tournament from the weak CAA Conference, but GMU’s gone farther (once). Needless to say, meting out GMU & Virginia Commonwealth specifically isn’t critical, the argument is that we’ve lost to an array of punchless low mid-major teams – Stetson, Wilmington, Presbyterian, Richmond, Winthrop, among others (and a squeak of a win against Greensboro) – by over 12 points per game.
Let’s talk turnovers..
TO%
a1) During the first 7 games, TO% was 23%.
a2) During the following 7 games, TO% was 21.7%
a3) During our 5 most recent games, against ACC opponents, our TO% is 22%.
What’s more, TO% isn’t a reliable metric from which to measure improvements made by the coach. Looking at the game-by-game TO% on a chart doesn’t est. a causal link between Bzdelik improving the team as the season’s run its course – TO%‘s can be mitigated by players easily – players initially unused to playing a traditional point guard role, whom moderate but don’t eliminate their awful TO #’s as they settle into proxy PG roles & plateau the TO%.
Let’s analyze the evolution statistical swan dive this team has experienced as the season has progressed, in order to credibly assess whether Coach Bzdelik has improved the team in any area.
1) APG:
a1) During the first seven games, APG was 13.1
a2) During the following seven games, APG was 10.
a3) During our 5 most recent games, against ACC opponents, APG is 9.4 (good for worst in the ACC).
2) FG%:
b1) During the first 7 games, FG% was 44.8%
b2) During the following 7 games, FG% was 44.8%
b3) During our 5 most recent games, against ACC opponents, our FG% is 35.6%
3) 3FG%:
c1) During the first seven games, our 3FG% was 44.7%
c2) During the next seven, our 3FG% was 35.7%
c3) During our most 5 most recent games, against ACC opponents, our 3FG% is 28%.
4) PPG:
d1) During the first 7, we averaged 72 points
d2) During the next 7, we averaged 69 points.
d3) During our games against ACC opponents, we’re averaging 57 points.
5) Margin of Loss: It’s understandable to widen some with play against better opponents, but certainly that’s to be mitigated substantially if the coach has competently adjusted. E.g., if Bzdelik’s adapted competently, the margin of loss can increase but shouldn’t unreasonably. After stumbling to the end of the non-conf. schedule, our margin of loss has more than doubled from 12 points to losing by over 26 points per game, more than 6 times the margin of victory loss by the next worst ACC team, Miami.
6) RPG:
e1) During the first seven games we averaged 36 RPG.
e2) During the next seven, we averaged 34 RPG.
e3) During our 5 most recent games, against ACC opponents, we’re averaging 32 RPG.
7) Defense (Perhaps the Most Damning):
f1) Oppo. True Shooting Percentage (TS%)/Opponent Shooting Percentage If We Account for FT & 3FG:
i) During our first 7 games, opponents’ TS% was 48.2%.
ii) During our next 7, opponents’ TS% was 55.4%.
iii) During our 5 most recent games, against ACC opponents, opponents’ TS% is 55.5% (good for second worst).
f2) Opponent FG%:
i) During the first seven games, opponents’ FG% was 41.2%.
ii) During the next seven, opponents’ FG% was 46.8%
iii) During our 5 more recent games, against ACC opponents, opponents’ FG% is 46.2% (good for second worst).
f3) Opponent 3FG%:
i) During the first 7 games, opponents’ 3FG% was 31.8%.
ii) During the next 7, opponents’ 3FG% was 39.4%
iii) During our 5 most recent games, against ACC opponents, opponents’ 3FG% is 40.2% (good for second worst).
f4) Opponent RPG:
i) During the first seven games, oppo. RPG was 39.4.
ii) During the next seven, oppo. RPG was 32.6
iii) During our 5 most recent games, against ACC oppo., oppo. RPG is 43.4 (good for worst in the ACC).
As the season ran its course against doormat mid-majors through the first 14 games of the season, our PPG dropped, our FG% remained the same, our 3FG% dropped, our RPG dropped, Oppo. TS% increased, Oppo. FG% increased, & Oppo. 3FG% increased. We have not improved in one single area in ACC play. Literally, among the most statistically significant categories, our TO% has plateaued & calcified into the worst in the ACC, and our oppo. RPG improved briefly in the second half of our weak non-conf. schedule, then ballooned again into the ACC’s worst in conference play.
So you tell me, how is Bzdelik adapting competently & demonstrably improving the team as we enter the last 1/3 of the dumpster fire season?
This is a long response too, but all of the “according to my eyeball test + hopes I feel like it’s getting better” is a tired response that’s neither grounded in quantifiable reality nor as proactive as many would like us to be towards our most important program. I’ll post it as a fanshot.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jan 24, 2011 2:25 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Why?
Why do you always post a long comment and then feel the need to post it as a fanshot, saying the same thing? Repetitiveness does not make your point any better.
You point out a lot of stats I don’t care about. PPG, rebounds per game, assists per game, etc. I think its funny how any positive aspects of the team, you attribute to the players (see TO%) and any negative aspects, you attribute to the coach (margin of victory). Again, you can’t have it both ways (like other debate w/lack of PG).
B/c..
1) Even in the very best of all worlds, where a plateaued & still horrid TO% is directly attributable to the coach to the tune of a 1% downward tick, that’s not something to hang a word like “improvement” on. So, is TO% relevant but every other measure (Oppo. TS%, Oppo. FG%, Oppo. 3FG%, Oppo. RPG, our APG, FG%, 3FG%, PPG, RPG) apparently not because they say bad things, which makes me a negative nancy, which makes what I say wrong/incorrect?
2) If someone doesn’t care about margin of victory loss as a measure of increased/decreased competitiveness, segmenting more, non-margin of loss telltale numbers into three near-even stages of the season – first 7 games, the subsequent 7 games, & the most recent 5 in-conference games – is a systemic, scientific way of assessing how a team has progressed or regressed over the course of (2/3 of) a season…
3) I write something like this b/c when I say things, I don’t ignore people who respond, & if I’m going to criticize or affirm as large an animal as big as program performance at the school/program I care about most, I’m not going to waste other peoples’ time with stuff like “The team’s great or terrible, according to my smell test & hopeless optimism or cynicism, & the rest of you are simply wrong,” e.g. if I’m going to say something re an animal as big as program performance at the school & program I respect & care about most like my Demon Deacons, I need a systemic, scientific basis to make my eval. even worth mentioning.. I don’t think using an array of quantifiers is an unreasonable minimal benchmark for others to meet either..
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jan 24, 2011 9:27 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So, is TO% relevant but every other measure (Oppo. TS%, Oppo. FG%, Oppo. 3FG%, Oppo. RPG, our APG, FG%, 3FG%, PPG, RPG) apparently not because they say bad things, which makes me a negative nancy, which makes what I say wrong/incorrect?
Not necessarily. I just don’t think it is fair to say that the players are improving the TO% but every other metric that is declining (against ACC teams) is the fault of the coach.
If you want to credit the players, give them some blame for not playing defense.
Whatever.
Not only do I agree with JoshuaR (and for the record, thanks for the link, that stuff is always good to know), but I just don’t get what the point of having your attitude like this is. I regret to inform you all that the likelihood of Bzdelik getting fired before the graduation of our current sophomores is unlikely, and him being fired after this year is next to impossible. Wellman is too high on him, and unless you want to upend the entire athletic department even though before this year football, basketball, and many other sports were doing well, we’re stuck for a while.
We’ll agree to disagree, but I for one choose to take a more optimistic outlook unless otherwise forced to.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
