I hope to flesh out this post a little bit more later, but to inform my selections on Pac-12 end-of-season awards, I went through and ran my NBA rating system (WARP) strictly for conference games. The ratings for everyone in the conference are below. One unfortunate note: the Pac-12 site hadn’t yet updated for last night’s games, so Cal, Stanford, Arizona and Arizona State stats are based on 17 games. Adjust accordingly.

Player of the Year: Devoe Joseph, Oregon
Briefly, I think this is a complete tossup and you could make a case for about a half-dozen people. The one big question the stats raise is why Jorge Gutierrez gets so much more credit for Cal’s success than Allen Crabbe, who puts up Terrence Ross-like stats on a good team with minimal hype. I value Gutierrez’s contributions, but don’t overlook Crabbe.

Coach of the Year: Dana Altman, Oregon
Most of the commentary on this pick has gone along the lines of “Altman’s teams didn’t exceed expectations as much as others” (Tad Boyle and Lorenzo Romar, notably). I don’t know exactly when Coach of the Year evolved into “Coach who beat preseason projections by the most of the Year,” but it’s past time for that to stop. Sometimes we were just wrong. I had Colorado 11th in the Pac-12. I was wrong. I didn’t know the team well enough coming from the Big 12, and didn’t realize how good the Buffaloes’ incoming freshman guards were. (More on that in a moment.) I think both Boyle and Romar had fine seasons (you know my feelings on Romar, the actual winner), but if I had to pick a coach to lead my team based on their performance this specific season, it would be Altman. In a sense, Altman is penalized in terms of expectations for doing such a good job in his first season in Eugene. Part of the reason Oregon was picked fifth in the conference was because the Ducks dramatically overachieved last year, in large part due to Altman’s arrival.

Freshman of the Year: Tony Wroten, Washington
A no-brainer pick, really. Player of the Year would have been a bit of a stretch for Wroten–Ross was, to me, the Huskies’ most valuable player–but for a freshman Wroten was terrific and every bit as good as advertised if not better.

Defensive Player of the Year: Andre Roberson, Colorado
Another Gutierrez pick in reality. The best defensive guard cannot possibly have as much impact on the game as the best defensive big man. Roberson is an elite rebounder and shot blocker who also generated steals more frequently than Gutierrez. Enjoy this man before he bolts for the NBA.

Most Improved Player: Brock Motum, Washington State
Motum’s development from fringe big man to the best in the conference has truly been remarkable.

All-Pac-12 First Team (done the real way)

G – Devoe Joseph, Oregon
G – Jorge Gutierrez, California
F – Terrence Ross, Washington
F – Allen Crabbe, California
C – Brock Motum, Washington State

G – Tony Wroten, Washington
G – Jared Cunningham, Oregon State
F – Solomon Hill, Arizona
F – Andre Roberson, Colorado
C – Travis Wear, UCLA

G – Kyle Fogg, Arizona
G – Justin Cobbs, California
F – E.J. Singler, Oregon
F – Josh Owens, Stanford
C – Jesse Perry, Arizona

All-Freshman Team

Tony Wroten, Washington
Spencer Dinwiddie, Colorado
Chasson Randle, Stanford
Askia Booker, Colorado
David Kravish, California

I fully expected Nick Johnson to make it, too, before I started the process. Wroten, Dinwiddie and Randle were a cut above everyone else as successful freshman starters. Kravish was one of the conference’s most efficient scorers. That leaves Booker, who apparently didn’t even get any votes for the team. When I watched Colorado play, Booker was as important to the team’s success as anyone on the roster. His ability to penetrate made the Buffalo attack much more dangerous. Really, though, this last spot is about how you value non-conference play vis-a-vis conference play for postseason awards, since Johnson was at his best in November and December and Booker came on as soon as Pac-12 play began.

All-Defensive Team

G – Jorge Gutierrez, Cal
G – Jared Cunningham, Oregon State
F – Marcus Capers, Washington State
F – Andre Roberson, Colorado
C – Aziz N’Diaye, Washington

Mostly agree with the real picks; Capers was next in line, but lost out to Kyle Fogg.

Player              Tm         ORtg    DRtg   Win%   WARP
---------------------------------------------------------
Andre Roberson      COL       107.3    96.6   .812    5.4
Allen Crabbe        CAL       109.7   103.6   .691    4.3
Brock Motum         WSU       112.0   106.3   .674    4.1
Devoe Joseph        ORE       110.7   105.7   .656    4.1
Terrence Ross       UW        107.1   101.6   .677    3.9
Kyle Fogg           ARI       109.1   103.6   .673    3.7
Tony Wroten         UW        107.2   102.4   .654    3.6
Solomon Hill        ARI       107.6   102.6   .661    3.6
Jared Cunningham    OSU       109.0   105.3   .620    3.5
Travis Wear         UCLA      110.5   103.9   .702    3.3
Devon Collier       OSU       110.0   104.2   .681    3.3
Justin Cobbs        CAL       108.3   104.4   .624    3.3
Jorge Gutierrez     CAL       106.5   102.9   .618    3.1
Lazeric Jones       UCLA      107.5   104.4   .599    3.1
Josh Owens          STA       106.7   102.7   .631    2.9
EJ Singler          ORE       109.0   105.8   .605    2.9
Tyler Lamb          UCLA      104.7   102.2   .581    2.5
Carlos Emory        ORE       111.6   104.1   .726    2.5
Eric Moreland       OSU       103.4    98.8   .653    2.4
Jesse Perry         ARI       107.0   104.7   .577    2.3

Player              Tm         ORtg    DRtg   Win%   WARP
---------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Bachynski    ASU       107.1   102.2   .660    2.2
Joshua Smith        UCLA      109.9   103.9   .688    2.1
Jason Washburn      UTAH      105.5   103.7   .560    2.1
CJ Wilcox           UW        109.0   105.6   .610    2.0
Spencer Dinwiddie   COL       106.6   104.7   .560    2.0
Jerime Anderson     UCLA      104.6   103.6   .533    1.9
Olu Ashaolu         ORE       108.1   104.7   .611    1.8
Harper Kamp         CAL       106.3   105.1   .542    1.8
David Wear          UCLA      107.3   106.0   .544    1.8
David Kravish       CAL       105.4   103.6   .559    1.8
Garrett Sim         ORE       107.3   106.6   .523    1.7
Carlon Brown        COL       106.2   105.3   .531    1.6
Josh Huestis        STA       104.2   102.0   .572    1.6
Austin Dufault      COL       106.0   105.2   .527    1.5
Askia Booker        COL       107.3   105.4   .563    1.5
Aziz N'Diaye        UW        103.9   103.3   .520    1.3
Brendon Lavender    ARI       109.2   107.4   .558    1.2
Ahmad Starks        OSU       106.8   107.2   .489    1.2
Chasson Randle      STA       106.4   106.7   .490    1.2
Garrett Jackson     USC       102.7   102.9   .494    1.1

Player              Tm         ORtg    DRtg   Win%   WARP
---------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Jones       USC       102.7   103.6   .466    1.1
Cedric Martin       UTAH      105.8   106.5   .475    1.0
Abe Lodwick         WSU       107.2   106.8   .511    1.0
Nick Johnson        ARI       103.9   104.5   .481    0.9
Joe Burton          OSU       104.0   104.4   .486    0.9
Roberto Nelson      OSU       105.9   106.1   .493    0.9
Josiah Turner       ARI       102.1   102.8   .476    0.8
John Gage           STA       107.7   105.4   .574    0.8
Trent Lockett       ASU       103.6   104.0   .487    0.8
DaVonte Lacy        WSU       105.9   107.0   .465    0.8
Dwight Powell       STA       102.5   102.5   .501    0.8
Tony Woods          ORE       102.4   102.4   .499    0.7
Darnell Gant        UW        105.2   106.2   .467    0.7
DJ Shelton          WSU       106.3   105.5   .526    0.7
Anthony Stover      UCLA      100.4    98.4   .571    0.6
Faisal Aden         WSU       106.2   104.8   .548    0.6
Kevin Parrom        ARI       107.6   105.4   .571    0.6
Aaron Bright        STA       105.8   107.3   .449    0.6
Brett Kingma        ORE       113.9   104.2   .776    0.6
Richard Solomon     CAL       108.8   100.1   .763    0.5

Player              Tm         ORtg    DRtg   Win%   WARP
---------------------------------------------------------
Dewayne Dedmon      USC       105.9   105.6   .507    0.5
Robert Thurman      CAL       106.5   107.0   .481    0.4
Nate Tomlinson      COL       104.9   107.0   .433    0.4
Emerson Murray      CAL       110.7   105.6   .659    0.4
Dijon Farr          UTAH      102.3   104.4   .432    0.4
Reggie Moore        WSU       104.5   106.7   .426    0.3
Greg Allen          USC       104.1   106.0   .437    0.3
Anthony Brown       STA       102.7   104.8   .429    0.3
Tyrone Nared        ORE       101.1   102.7   .446    0.3
Jonathan Gilling    ASU       105.4   107.9   .421    0.3
Angelo Chol         ARI       101.7   103.4   .444    0.2
Desmond Simmons     UW        102.0   104.2   .425    0.2
Chanse Creekmur     ASU       104.0   106.5   .418    0.2
Marcus Capers       WSU       103.2   105.8   .413    0.1
Angus Brandt        OSU       105.5   108.1   .412    0.1
Jack Ryan           STA       109.4    97.8   .827    0.1
Pierre Newton       ASU       121.9   107.2   .858    0.1
Shawn Kemp          UW        104.2   106.0   .441    0.1
Martin Breunig      UW        106.5   106.6   .499    0.1
Dave Whitmore       ASU       106.6   104.2   .579    0.1

Player              Tm         ORtg    DRtg   Win%   WARP
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Jones        OSU       108.3    94.9   .865    0.1
George Matthews     UTAH       97.9    99.3   .449    0.0
Max Wiepking        ARI       142.6    97.1   .995    0.0
Andy Brown          STA       103.2   105.0   .439    0.0
Bak Bak             CAL       101.8   104.4   .414    0.0
Rhys Murphy         OSU       103.3   105.4   .429    0.0
Matt DeMarcus       UCLA      105.6   104.5   .538    0.0
Dave Wink           WSU       106.8   109.7   .406    0.0
Danilo Dragovic     USC        95.7   109.7   .128    0.0
Drew Mellon         ARI        95.5   118.2   .048    0.0
Jordin Mayes        ARI       100.8   103.8   .400    0.0
Beau Webb           COL       104.8   109.7   .347    0.0
Jullian Powers      OSU        95.8   109.7   .130    0.0
Alex Rossi          CAL       104.4   108.9   .355    0.0
Quinton Crawford    ARI        79.8   109.7   .012    0.0
Ben Mills           COL        95.4   101.2   .304    0.0
Dondre Wise         ARI        94.9   109.7   .116    0.0
Tyler Sugiyama      USC        95.7   107.4   .165    0.0
Tyler Trapani       UCLA       94.6   109.7   .112    0.0
Brendan Sherrer     UW         99.7   108.6   .230    0.0

Player              Tm         ORtg    DRtg   Win%   WARP
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wegner         UW         85.2   109.7   .028    0.0
Jack Trotter        STA       102.8   106.8   .369    0.0
Nicholas Lucenti    ORE        71.7   109.7   .003   -0.1
David Brown         UCLA       85.1    98.4   .115   -0.1
Keala King          ASU        99.4   104.8   .323   -0.1
Kenny Jones         UCLA       99.4   110.5   .186   -0.1
Alex Jacobson       ARI        97.1   110.5   .140   -0.1
CJ Mitchell         OSU        91.7   107.4   .098   -0.1
Andrew Zimmermann   STA       101.6   105.2   .381   -0.1
Aaron Fuller        USC       101.5   105.3   .373   -0.1
Wade Morgan         STA        72.4   112.7   .002   -0.1
Brendan Lane        UCLA      101.9   106.8   .341   -0.1
Robbie Lemons       STA        78.8   112.2   .007   -0.1
Trey Eckloff        COL        81.2   108.0   .018   -0.1
Jeff Powers         CAL        98.2   110.5   .161   -0.1
Chris Colvin        ASU       103.0   106.4   .389   -0.1
Will DiIorio        WSU        99.0   107.5   .239   -0.2
Josh Watkins        UTAH      101.6   105.7   .363   -0.2
Kyryl Natyazhko     ARI        97.4   108.6   .179   -0.2
Shannon Sharpe      COL        96.6   106.8   .197   -0.2

Player              Tm         ORtg    DRtg   Win%   WARP
---------------------------------------------------------
A Seferian          UW        100.5   106.2   .315   -0.2
Max Heller          ASU        98.4   105.8   .267   -0.2
Blake Wilkinson     UTAH      100.1   105.7   .320   -0.2
Sabatino Chen       COL       101.5   105.8   .358   -0.2
Kyle Perkins        UTAH       99.9   106.3   .296   -0.2
Patrick Simon       WSU        97.0   109.3   .158   -0.2
Christian BEHRENS   CAL        96.2   109.6   .138   -0.2
Hikeem Stewart      UW         95.8   109.3   .137   -0.2
Damiene Cain        COL        93.2   107.8   .116   -0.2
Stefan Nastic       STA        99.5   106.6   .276   -0.3
Dexter Kernich      WSU       101.3   107.1   .315   -0.3
Kevin McShane       OSU       101.6   107.6   .309   -0.3
Norman Powell       UCLA      102.1   106.3   .363   -0.3
Carrick Felix       ASU       101.5   105.4   .372   -0.4
Abdul Gaddy         UW        103.1   106.9   .377   -0.4
Charlie Enquist     WSU        97.0   104.0   .274   -0.4
Jeremy Adams        COL        99.9   106.3   .296   -0.5
Mike Ladd           WSU       101.0   106.6   .318   -0.5
Johnathan Loyd      ORE       101.4   106.9   .325   -0.5
Alex Mortensen      UTAH       87.3   105.5   .066   -0.5

Player              Tm         ORtg    DRtg   Win%   WARP
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Munoz        USC        95.1   106.5   .171   -0.6
Byron Wesley        USC       100.4   104.4   .367   -0.6
Jeremy Jacob        ORE       101.2   107.1   .313   -0.6
Ruslan Pateev       ASU        99.3   104.6   .326   -0.6
Alexis Moore        USC       100.9   105.7   .343   -0.7
Chris Hines         UTAH      103.6   108.1   .356   -0.7
Tunks, Harris       COL        98.9   106.6   .260   -0.8
Brandon Smith       CAL        96.5   105.6   .222   -0.8
Eric Strangis       USC        98.5   107.5   .227   -0.9
Kyle Cain           ASU        98.5   105.0   .288   -0.9
James Blasczyk      USC       100.5   106.6   .306   -1.0
Jarrett Mann        STA        99.8   107.1   .272   -1.0
Javon Dawson        UTAH       98.5   106.7   .244   -1.1
Challe Barton       OSU        97.2   109.8   .153   -1.3
Anthony Odunsi      UTAH       95.2   107.1   .161   -1.5
Kareem Storey       UTAH       99.7   107.7   .254   -1.7

It’s that time of year where I start taking up college hoops on Basketball Prospectus, and today I tried to wrap up the careers of the Pac-12’s rotation seniors. My comments on Darnell Gant:

Depending on how the Huskies finish the season, Gant has a chance to be the first player in school history to reach the NCAA tournament four times. Already, he’s the first ever to win 20-plus games all four years. That’s had more to do with Quincy Pondexter, Isaiah Thomas and Terrence Ross, sure, but Gant has played a role. A versatile defender, he’s turned himself into an efficient option on offense by extending his range beyond the three-point line. In fact, only one UW teammate (C.J. Wilcox) has a higher Offensive Rating this season. No wonder that when I ran plus-minus numbers for the Huskies at midseason, Gant was one of the standouts.

I also wanted to add a quick note on Brendan Sherrer that wouldn’t have been appropriate for the national audience. Before this season, I was a touch worried about the adoration for Sherrer, given the obvious racial element that he was the only white player on the UW roster. It troubled me that when Antoine Hosley walked on to the team last year, he barely got token applause while the crowd exploded for Sherrer. Fortunately, when Alex Wegner arrived as a walk-on this season, it rendered the argument moot. Like Hosley, Wegner barely gets noticed by the crowd.

There is a little of the soft tyranny of low expectations here–while Sherrer’s entire career was strictly reserved for garbage time, it looks like Wegner could maybe help the team someday with his outside shooting–but mostly Sherrer’s popularity seems to be a function of his unique backstory. Not many players can say they started college as season-ticket holders (part of the Dawg Pack, no less) and ended them as two-time conference tournament champions.

Before Sherrer was invited to walk on following tryouts, Lorenzo Romar explained his reticence to bring on walk-ons because many of them end up disappointed with their small role. There was never any such worry with Sherrer, the ultimate teammate.

In the end, Sherrer got his reward. Against Arizona last Saturday, in his last scheduled home game, Sherrer got the traditional Senior Day start. Kudos to Romar for sticking with Sherrer even in a must-win game. The walk-on responded with a couple of solid minutes of basketball–his pick-and-roll defense was particularly effective–before giving way to Aziz N’Diaye. With the game decided, Sherrer got back on the floor in the late stages and then got one final ovation from the Dawg Pack as he left the floor. Now that’s a way to go out.

I promised a few weeks ago, in the comments on my Lorenzo Romar manifesto, that I would follow up with more data. I apologize that other projects have gotten in the way, but there’s good news. During the interim, Dan Hanner of RealGM.com (who joins me in contributing to the annual College Basketball Prospectus series) ran some of the numbers for me.

If there’s one common semi-criticism of Romar, it’s that he can attract marquee talent but struggles when it comes to Xs and Os and does less with these players than he should. If not untrue, I tend to find this argument somewhat overstated. So compiling recruiting data was a key pillar of my follow-up piece. Fortunately, Hanner has done the work for me. In a fascinating post this morning, he evaluates tenured major-conference coaches based on two factors: their recruiting (as measured using RSCI rankings of the players they sign) and how those recruits subsequently develop offensively over the course of their college careers.

Romar ranks 19th in recruiting, which is reasonably impressive. That’s second among Pac-12 coaches behind Ben Howland, with Sean Miller likely to leapfrog Romar after next season’s star-studded incoming class. Where Romar really shines by this measure, however, is in terms of developing players. He ranks fourth out of the 49 major-conference coaches, behind Matt Fox, Bo Ryan and Craig Robinson.

Granted, that’s not a who’s who of names, with the exception of Ryan. One of the shortcomings of this approach is that coaches who land top-10 recruiting chances have less ability to develop talent, both because the players are already that good and because they head to the NBA early. Still, coaches like Ryan and California’s Mike Montgomery (fifth) are renowned for their ability to produce good offenses because of complex systems, and Romar’s players are developing a similar amount. In fact, those two coaches probably have the most similar combination of recruiting/developing to Romar. (Fox and Robinson have much lower recruiting scores.)

This shouldn’t really be a surprise. While Romar has gotten his share of top-10 recruits, especially as compared to his predecessors at Washington, some of his best players have been relatively unheralded. By RSCI, Isaiah Thomas–averaging nearly 20 points over four starts for the Sacramento Kings during the last week–was the nation’s 85th-best recruit. Bobby Jones, a key contributor to Romar’s first three tournament teams who got multiple chances in the league, ranked 97th. Justin Holiday was unranked. Will Conroy came to UW (under Bob Bender, initially) as a walk-on. Even Brandon Roy (45th) was far from considered a sure thing nationally coming out of high school.

Now maybe these players were just misjudged by recruiters. The success enjoyed by Roy and Thomas in the NBA suggests they truly were elite talents, and academic concerns were a factor in why they dropped in the rankings. Still, Romar and his staff have managed to develop and utilize these players to reach potential no one else saw.

Obviously, this is a season unlike any other for the Pac-12, and not just because the conference expanded. Still, with the Huskies earning their 11th and 12th conference wins last weekend with a sweep of the Arizona schools to complete their home schedule, I was curious how many Pac-10 teams won at least 12 games and were not chosen for the NCAA tournament, at least since it expanded to 64 teams in 1985. As it turns out, there have been three teams, all of whom went 12-6 in conference:

• the 1984-85 UCLA Bruins (15-12, 12-6)
• the 1987-88 UCLA Bruins (16-14, 12-6)
• the 2009-10 Arizona State Sun Devils (22-10, 12-6)

Bizarrely, of the three examples, two were coached by the same person (the late Walt Hazzard). I saw a reference to Hazzard not being particularly concerned with non-conference games, which makes sense looking at UCLA’s overall record those two seasons. While the Bruins played difficult schedules, it’s incredible that the same teams that went 7-14 against non-conference opposition could go 24-12 against Pac-10 foes.

The 1985 UCLA team proved it could beat teams outside the West Coast during the NIT, knocking off Louisville and Indiana at Madison Square Garden to win the tournament. As for the 1988 team, it lost in the opening round of the original Pac-10 tournament to lowly Washington State, never even got bubble consideration and was passed over for the NIT. Hazzard was fired at season’s end and replaced by Jim Harrick.

Naturally, Arizona State is the better comparison for what will likely happen to at least one Pac-12 team this season. The conference wasn’t a whole lot better two years ago, when the only NCAA tournament representatives were regular-season champions California (an 8 seed) and tournament champions Washington (an 11). The Sun Devils were lacking in marquee victories (they beat just one team out of conference ranked in the nation’s top 150 by Kenpom.com) and fell victim to an opening-round upset in the Pac-10 tournament, knocking them off the bubble. A disappointed Arizona State squad ended up losing to Jacksonville at home in the first round of the NIT.

One of my favorite Ken Pomeroy studies comes from College Basketball Prospectus 2008-09, when Ken took aim at the notion that Team A is better than Team B just because Team A beat Team B. What he found was truly remarkable. Teams that won conference home games by 10-19 points were basically 50-50 win the rematch on the road (.507, to be exact). Even teams that won blowouts by at least 20 points at home won just 58.3 percent of the time facing the same opponent on the road.

There are two lessons to be taken here. The first is that home-court advantage is a big deal in college basketball. (More recently, Pomeroy found it is worth 3.8 points to the home team.) The second is that a single game simply isn’t all that telling about the respective strength of the two teams involved.

I thought about that research tonight, when the Washington Huskies were destroyed at Matt Knight Arena, 82-57. In many ways, the game was a mirror image of the game the Huskies played against the Oregon Ducks on New Year’s Eve. Both times, the home team took a first-half lead and continued to extend it thanks to hot shooting. At Hec Ed, Washington shot 12-of-22 (54.5 percent) from three-point range, while Oregon made just 21.7 percent (5-of-23). Tonight, that reversed itself, as the Ducks shot 7-of-13 (53.8 percent) and the Huskies 2-of-16 (12.5 percent) from beyond the arc. Each game featured the worst offensive performance of the season by the losing team.

Had the two teams both shot their usual percentage on threes (which is nearly identical, 35.7 percent for Washington and 36.1 percent for Oregon), the Huskies would have scored an additional nine points and the Ducks six fewer. That wouldn’t have been enough to make up the 25-point difference, but it certainly would have made the game a lot more respectable. Given the outcome of the first game, it’s difficult to argue the difference is a meaningful statement about the two teams. It’s just noise.

To me, a possession early in the game was a microcosm of Washington’s night. Down 12-4, far too early to be out of the game, the Huskies ran probably their best single possession of zone offense. After sucking Oregon’s zone to the strong side of the court, Washington passed over the top to a wide-open Terrence Ross, only to see the 38.4 percent three-point shooter miss. Those kinds of misses are disheartening on the road, especially when the opposition is throwing up every shot it takes. Conversely, the microcosm at the other end was the Huskies forcing Tyrone Nared–6-for-21 from three on the year–to shoot from beyond the arc with the shot clock running down and Ross draped all over him. Nared made it because of course he did.

Plays like that don’t excuse the disparity in energy between the two teams, but they do explain it.

The upside from Washington’s perspective is that Thursday’s game can be flushed away fairly safely. The downside is the broader perspective isn’t quite as sanguine as it appeared from the conference standings. As John Gasaway’s Tuesday Truths breakdown showed, the Huskies’ efficiency differential through last weekend did not match up to their Pac-12-leading 9-2 record. Washington has been the beneficiary of some good fortune in recent games, including narrow victories at Arizona and over UCLA. Not only does the Huskies’ differential now look even worse, it doesn’t account for a favorable schedule that has included seven home games and just five on the road to date.

There are plenty of issues the Huskies must correct. The Ducks’ four-out offense was able to exploit Washington’s difficulty guarding cuts in the paint without help from a big man, which is why the Huskies were more effective defensively when they briefly switched to a zone before halftime. Tony Wroten has to adjust to opponents playing him for the drive and flopping before he makes contact, plays that are as preventable as they are aggravating. Abdul Gaddy must find his confidence and C.J. Wilcox his rhythm as shooters. (How long ago Gaddy’s 3-of-3 shooting from downtown in the last meeting with Oregon now seems; since then, he’s made four threes in his last 22 attempts.) And Washington must find a way to get Ross some easy buckets. His stepbacks and three-pointers are exhilarating when they’re working, but when those difficult shots don’t go in Ross is too often a non-factor for a player with his immense offensive gifts.

We’ve seen how good the Huskies can be. Their win at Arizona increasingly looks as impressive as almost any in the conference this season, edged only by the Wildcats winning at Cal. Yet when Washington is off, the results are ugly. Neither performance extreme is indicative of the Huskies’ true level, which lies somewhere in between. Where it settles will determine Washington’s fate in a Pac-12 that is still there for the taking.

For some reason, nothing fascinates me more than the way college basketball coaches use their timeouts. And there is no more interesting study than UCLA’s Ben Howland, who seems to value his stoppages of play differently than anyone else in the country. I coined the term Howland for a timeout called to stop a run when the next dead ball would mean a media timeout because Howland is the leading practitioner of a trend that is all too common around the country.

The Bruins’ visit to Hec Edmundson Pavilion last year was the quintessential Howland timeout game. He burned through three timeouts in the first half and had used up all five of them by the 12:57 mark of a close game. When Howland took his first timeout 2:32 into Thursday’s ballgame, it looked like we were headed for a repeat. Instead, the UCLA coach showed surprising discretion, added by his team’s ability to stem any Washington momentum with timely scores.

Howland took a pair of timeouts to the five-minute mark, then used one with 4:38 to play to set up his defense after a score, giving him one to burn. He never used it.

Remarkably, the Bruins found themselves in precisely the sort of situation for which most coaches save their timeouts. After a Terrence Ross miss, UCLA took possession down two with 26 seconds remaining. The Bruins came down and got into their offense, even after the Huskies took away any opportunities for transition or the secondary break. The resulting play was a mess. Freshmen guard Norman Powell eventually got the ball in the corner. Powell, who was in the game only because Tyler Lamb had fouled out, driving for a contested pull-up jumper with three seconds left. When he missed, time ran out before the Bruins could secure the rebound or foul.

Lamb’s fifth foul, with 2:49 left, was an important point in the game. Without him, the Bruins had no choice but to use smaller defenders on the 6-6 Ross. Having already made his previous two shots, Ross abused Powell for a score and the foul, then knocked down a three-pointer to extend the lead.

The performance capped another impressive second half for Ross, who has been two completely different players in the two halves at home dating back to the win over Washington State. The final shot was Ross’ only miss of the second half. He went for 18 points on 7-of-8 shooting. Over the last four games, updating stats provided by the Huskies Basketball App, Ross is averaging 3.0 points in the first half and 18.3 after halftime. His shooting percentage has gone from 19.2 percent to 65.7 percent.

The team has been similarly bipolar. While Thursday’s night didn’t qualify–the Huskies outscored UCLA by one in either half–it continued a trend of big runs by Washington in the second half. Against Washington State it was 18-2 midway through. UW got back in the Cal game with a 10-5 spurt, and reeled off 13 unanswered points to put Stanford away. Thursday saw the Huskies go on a 15-2 run to go from down 10 to up three in the final minute.

These runs have featured similar characteristics–turnovers leading to layups and dunks, Washington executing its offense for open looks from beyond the arc and a frenzied Hec Ed crowd. (I’m still a little hoarse from the game.) In a season that started with as much grumbling as cheering in the stands, these runs–and the home-court advantage they reflect–have been a welcome change.

Last weekend’s plus-minus numbers for the Huskies:

Arizona State
Wroten +12
Gant +8
N’Diaye +8
Gaddy +6
Ross +4
Seferian-Jenkins 0
Wilcox 0
Kemp -1
Simmons -7

Arizona
Wroten +12
N’Diaye +8
Simmons +8
Gaddy -2
Seferian-Jenkins -2
Ross -3
Wilcox -5
Gant -6

The big takeaway here is the newfound importance of Tony Wroten, who had the team’s best mark both games. The most critical stretch of the season might have been the nine minutes Wroten spent at point guard after Abdul Gaddy picked up his fourth foul midway through the second half in Tucson. Lately, Lorenzo Romar has been hesitant to put Wroten at the point. Gaddy played more than 80 consecutive minutes between halftime of the Stanford game and exiting just after the break at Arizona. Yet Wroten helped the Huskies extend their lead by four points before Gaddy returned and, for a variety of reasons, things got hairy.

It’s not just the last two games, which don’t mean that much on their own. The Gaddy-Wroten-Ross perimeter trio (+10.6) now rates well ahead of the Gaddy-Wilcox-Ross trio (+7.3) that started at the beginning of the season. Wroten’s steady improvement is a big reason why Washington has been able to survive Wilcox’s absence, and the team now looks stronger as Wilcox is able to ramp his minutes back up as the backup to all three perimeter starters.

Saturday’s game was unusual in that the Huskies won with just three players having a positive plus-minus. Nothing meaningful there, just an odd note. It was also just the fourth time all season with negative plus-minus for Darnell Gant and Terrence Ross. Gant has somehow been positive in five of Washington’s seven losses (including South Dakota State) but negative in two wins (Seattle U was the other).

Austin Seferian-Jenkins‘ hugely positive plus-minus didn’t carry over last weekend, but he was basically neutral on the road. Before the Arizona game seemed too fast for him, I was probably most comfortable with Seferian-Jenkins on the floor of any of the Huskies’ big men against Arizona State. UCLA, what with its size in the frontcourt, should be a much better matchup for Seferian-Jenkins tonight and a test of how much he can bring to the team.

When starting tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins walked on to the Husky basketball team earlier this month, it wasn’t clear what to expect. Seferian-Jenkins had been a fine player in high school, but would have to learn Lorenzo Romar‘s system from scratch during the middle of the season.

On Saturday, Seferian-Jenkins got his chance as Washington’s fourth big man off the bench, and made an immediate impression. In the 16 minutes he played before fouling out, Seferian-Jenkins grabbed seven boards and gave the Husky front line an element of toughness that was previously lacking. My work with plus-minus only reinforces how valuable Seferian-Jenkins was: Washington outscored Stanford by 17 points with him on the floor, meaning the Cardinal was +4 the rest of the 13-point Husky win.

Here are the single-game plus-minus figures for Thursday’s loss to California and Saturday:

California

Simmons +9
Ross +3
Gaddy +2
Gant +1
Wroten +1
Kemp -5
N’Diaye -5
Stewart -6

Stanford

Seferian-Jenkins +17
Gant +15
Wroten +14
Ross +13
Gaddy +9
N’Diaye 0
Simmons -3

Over a single game, we know plus-minus is not terribly meaningful in a larger sense. It tells a story–Washington was factually better with Seferian-Jenkins in the game–but can’t necessarily attribute it to his efforts. Maybe Seferian-Jenkins just happened to play with better lineups, or against weaker Stanford units. (Indeed, the Cardinal’s second-string front line is lacking.)

Still, the difference between Seferian-Jenkins and what the Huskies had been getting from their true freshmen big men is immense. Neither Martin Breunig nor Shawn Kemp, Jr. has posted a positive plus-minus in a conference game since the opener against Oregon State. C.J. Wilcox‘s injury further stressed Washington’s depth, and Seferian-Jenkins’ emergence allowed Romar to use Desmond Simmons as a backup small forward to rest his starting perimeter trio. (Such lineups were +3 in about seven and a half minutes.)

The loss to Cal can pretty clearly be traced to the segment of the first half when Kemp and fellow true freshman Hikeem Stewart were on the floor together. That unit put the Huskies in a hole that was ultimately too big to overcome. Seferian-Jenkins turned what had been Washington’s biggest weakness into an enormous positive. If he can do anything like that in the future, and if Wilcox is able to return, it stands the chance of turning around the season.

Using the play-by-play data available on stats.ncaa.org, I have manually calculated the plus-minus numbers for the Washington Huskies for every game save the win at Utah, during which the play-by-play was too error-riddled to be reliable. (For example, a number of substitutions where players checked out but weren’t replaced by anyone. For other errors I was able to recreate the lineups by looking at who made plays, but in this case there were too many to reconstruct everything with a reasonable degree of accuracy.)

Please take these numbers for what they are worth. As Ken Pomeroy explained well, plus-minus can be dangerous. In addition to the usual issues (small sample sizes, that we’re only comparing players to their replacements), at the college level there are unique problems with the quality of opposition. A player who sees most of his action against inferior opponents will look better than he should, and so on. Those caveats aside, I think there’s some value, especially in terms of evaluating combinations of players, as we will later.

Let’s start with overall performance:

Player     Min    UW    Opp   Net    P40   OP40    Net
------------------------------------------------------
Gaddy     521.3  1061   953   108   81.4   73.1    8.3
Ross      481.6   942   842   100   78.2   69.9    8.3
Wilcox    472.6   951   909    42   80.5   76.9    3.6
Wroten    453.6   919   866    53   81.0   76.4    4.7
Gant      357.4   724   607   117   81.0   67.9   13.1
Simmons   338.5   672   635    37   79.4   75.0    4.4
N'Diaye   333.9   681   596    85   81.6   71.4   10.2
Breunig   106.1   218   239   -21   82.2   90.1   -7.9
Kemp       87.3   135   170   -35   61.9   77.9  -16.0
Stewart    67.7   133   128     5   78.5   75.6    3.0
Sherrer    13.0    18    27    -9   55.3   83.0  -27.7
Wegner     11.8    16    23    -7   54.2   78.0  -23.7

In case you aren’t familiar with all these numbers, I’ll walk you through Abdul Gaddy‘s line. Gaddy has played 521.3 minutes, most on the team, and with him on the floor Washington has outscored the opposition 1061-953. What we’re most interested in are numbers per 40 minutes of playing time. If Gaddy was out there for an entire game, with identical lineups, we’d expect the Huskies to win 81.4 to 73.1 for an 8.3 margin.

That Gaddy and Terrence Ross are similar makes sense, since both have been on the floor much of the time. The veteran bigs have better numbers because of their weaker replacements. Washington has been outscored with freshmen big men Martin Breunig and Shawn Kemp, Jr. on the floor. As for Tony Wroten and C.J. Wilcox … well, let’s take a look at the next cut, which is ratings by position

PG         Min     P40   OP40  Net40
------------------------------------
Gaddy     521.3   81.4   73.1    8.3
Wroten    123.1   72.5   77.6   -5.2
Stewart     4.5   88.6   62.0   26.6

SG         Min     P40   OP40  Net40
------------------------------------
Wroten    318.4   83.3   75.5    7.8
Wilcox    261.2   77.0   71.7    5.4
Stewart    63.2   77.8   76.6    1.3
Ross        3.1   25.9   64.9  -38.9
Wegner      3.1   39.1   52.2  -13.0

SF         Min     P40   OP40  Net40
------------------------------------
Ross      410.4   77.4   68.1    9.3
Wilcox    210.1   84.7   83.2    1.5
Wroten     12.1  109.1   86.0   23.1
Wegner      8.7   59.5   87.0  -27.5
Simmons     7.7   47.0   93.9  -47.0

PF         Min     P40   OP40  Net40
------------------------------------
Simmons   311.9   80.5   75.3    5.3
Gant      185.6   78.5   64.2   14.2
Breunig    69.5   79.4   80.6   -1.2
Ross       68.2   85.7   81.0    4.7
Sherrer    10.2   51.1   90.5  -39.3
Kemp        2.4   33.1  149.0 -115.9
Wilcox      1.3   96.0  128.0  -32.0

C          Min     P40   OP40  Net40
------------------------------------
N'Diaye   333.9   81.6   71.4   10.2
Gant      171.9   83.8   71.9   11.9
Kemp       84.9   62.7   75.9  -13.2
Breunig    36.6   87.5  108.2  -20.8
Simmons    18.9   74.0   63.4   10.6
Sherrer     2.9   70.2   56.1   14.0

.A few things stand out here. First, Wroten has been ineffective at point guard this season. At shooting guard, he’s been the team’s best option, though partially for a reason that we’ll see in a second. The Huskies have been much better with Ross at small forward than Wilcox. And these numbers reinforce how much better Washington is with the veteran bigs on the floor. In particular, Breunig should never play center. When he’s in the middle, the Huskies have surrendered points at a preposterous rate. It’s just not fair to ask Breunig to serve as the team’s primary help defender at this stage of his development.

Instead of looking at lineups, most of which have played few minutes together (just one — Gaddy/Wilcox/Ross/Gant/N’Diaye — has played more than 42 minutes total), I prefer looking at combinations on the perimeter and in the post.

PG        SG        SF         Min     P40   OP40   Net40
---------------------------------------------------------
Gaddy     Wroten    Wilcox    182.5   88.8   83.1     5.7
Gaddy     Wilcox    Ross      155.4   77.5   65.4    12.1
Gaddy     Wroten    Ross      135.9   75.9   65.3    10.6
Wroten    Wilcox    Ross      101.0   75.6   78.8    -3.2

Wilcox at shooting guard looks much better when we take away the minutes he’s played next to Wroten. In fact, Gaddy/Wilcox/Ross has been the Huskies’ strongest trio. However, Gaddy/Wroten/Ross isn’t noticeably worse. With Wilcox’s status in question because of a stress fracture in his left femur, this group will get plenty of work in the next few games. Intriguingly, all the combinations of Gaddy/Wroten/Ross with Hikeem Stewart have been positive, offering some hope Washington can survive Wilcox’s absence.

PF        C          Min     P40   OP40   Net40
-----------------------------------------------
Gant      N'Diaye   168.5   78.8   66.5    12.3
Simmons   N'Diaye   123.0   83.0   69.6    13.3
Simmons   Gant      121.5   83.0   70.5    12.5
Ross      Gant       36.8   89.2   78.3    10.9
Simmons   Kemp       35.9   55.8   79.2   -23.4
Breunig   N'Diaye    31.1   88.7   86.1     2.6
Simmons   Breunig    30.2   91.5  114.0   -22.5
Breunig   Kemp       24.8   64.5   85.4   -21.0

Now, this point is interesting and probably wouldn’t have occurred to me without tracking plus-minus. You may have noticed earlier than Desmond Simmons rates much worse overall than Darnell Gant and Aziz N’Diaye. However, all three combinations of these three players have been about identical. Simmons rates so much worse because lineups featuring him and another freshman (either Breunig or Kemp) have struggled badly. In more limited minutes, Breunig and Kemp have performed better next to either Gant or N’Diaye.

Basically, Lorenzo Romar ought to make sure one of Gant or N’Diaye is on the floor at all times. Lately, Romar has used a three-post rotation after halftime, with one of the freshmen getting spot minutes during the first half. That has worked poorly with Breunig, who is a raw -12 in conference play and visibly looks overmatched against more experienced competition. That action would be better going to Kemp or possibly even Austin Seferian-Jenkins once Washington’s star tight end is up to speed on the basketball playbook.

One last note on the second half of Sunday’s Apple Cup win over Washington State: Gaddy/Wroten/Ross/Gant/N’Diaye (the team’s best regular lineup this season, at +31.6 points per 40 minutes) played together for 13 minutes, outscoring the Cougars by 14 points in that span. That long run was unlike anything we’ve seen this season; before then, only once all year had a lineup gone for more than six minutes at a time (that at the end of the loss to South Dakota State).

Generally, I like to consider myself an open-minded thinker. There are few opinions I hold that I am entirely unwilling to challenge from time to time, especially in the face of persuasive arguments to the contrary. One of these rare exceptions is my position that Lorenzo Romar is an outstanding college basketball coach.

So it was only natural that I took exception to a guest post on the seattlepi.com Undrafted Free Agent blog entitled “Will UW ever win big with Ro-Motion?” by David Ko. I’m not normally in the habit of picking apart every column I disagree with, but A.) this got some media attention from a source I respect and B.) it’s indicative of a general mindset that exists amongst a lot of Husky fans, and I’d like to do whatever I can to stomp it out.

I’d encourage you to go read the post–or at least skim; it’s long–before I rebut it. I won’t reprint it here in its entirety a la Fire Joe Morgan because another of my firmly held beliefs is that it’s wrong to deprive the author of their pageviews. I’ll still be here when you get done.

Good?

There are, I’d say, two general aspects of this argument undercutting Romar:
1. I don’t like the style Romar coaches
2. The Huskies should win more than they do

Let’s take these one at a time.

Yet one disturbing secret lies behind this apparent success at UW: Lorenzo Romar cannot coach basketball. Despite his three-year college playing career under Marv Harshman at UW, his five-year stint in the NBA, and his nearly 20-year coaching career as both an assistant and a head coach, Romar has either never bothered to learn the most basic and fundamental principles of basketball, or knows them but has failed to effectively communicate those principles to his team because he does not place great emphasis on them (the more likely scenario).

Long-time college and NBA coach Larry Brown popularized the phrase “play the right way.” I hate this phrase. It implies that there is one way to win basketball games, and all available evidence suggests this is not the case. There are college coaches that win at fast paces and slow paces, that win with offense and with defense, that win with freshmen and with seniors, that win with big rotations and with thin benches. The common denominator–the fundamental principle of basketball–is outscoring the opposition. There are many ways to get there.

The St. Louis game also highlighted an inaccurate perception about Romar-led Husky teams: that UW is a good defensive team. UW is in fact a very poor defensive team by most fundamental standards. [ … ] And in fact UW ranks 134th in the nation in defensive field goal percentage this year, and in the past five years, UW has finished no higher than 81st (in the ’07-’08 campaign) in the nation in this statistic. Individual effort and enthusiasm should never be confused with sound fundamental team defense.

Ko cites field-goal percentage defense, which is better than points allowed per game but still incomplete, especially because of the very fact he laments–that the Huskies’ focus on putting pressure on the perimeter occasionally sacrifices easy baskets. Honestly, Romar’s defensive philosophy doesn’t quite match mine, either; I prefer a Pat Riley-style focus on cutting off the paint that trades turnovers for lower shooting percentages and fewer trips to the free throw line. Still, there is no argument that Romar’s defense has been generally unsuccessful. Washington ranked ninth in the nation in adjusted defensive efficiency in 2009 and has been in the country’s top 31 three times in the past seven seasons. This year’s defense ranks 136th. The Huskies have unquestionably struggled because of limited size (and especially experience size) in the frontcourt. But one season cannot be taken as a rejection of Romar’s entire defensive style.

From a broader perspective, I think it’s important to note that comparing a coach’s decisions to what you would do is a terrible way to evaluate them. One of my favorite pieces of writing is a Bill James column on the problems of this method. I think everyone on the Internet should be required to read James’ column at least once a year. Ultimately, if you use this measure, you will find that no coach in the world meets your standards, because you are the only person who views things the exact way you do.

This pick-up style of offense consists of fast-break offense for the first 35 minutes of a game, followed by a frustrating five minutes of offense consisting of the following: Gaddy or Wroten checking to see if the ball still has air by pounding the rock for 15-18 seconds at the top of the key, an off the ball screen set by a post for Ross or Wilcox on the baseline (and by “screen” I am being highly complementary as our posts tend to fill space rather than set an actual screen, a trait directly attributable to poor-coaching), a subsequent pass to Ross or Wilcox on the wing, ultimately followed by either (1) a Ross or Wilcox three from the spot where the pass was received, (2) a Ross or Wilcox drive from the wing, or (3) a pass back to either Gaddy or Wroten at the top of the key for a Gaddy or Wroten drive to the hoop. In all circumstances, Romar is on the sidelines pumping his fists imploring his team to move. “Hey coach – but where should we move?”

Again, the numbers speak for themselves. The Huskies were a top-10 offense a year ago, and this season’s ranking (65th) in adjusted offensive efficiency is the team’s worst since Romar’s first season in Seattle. A larger point is that I think the influence of the transition game on overall offensive performance tends to be overstated. There just aren’t that many opportunities for any team to run. Paul Westhead and other novelties aside, every team (including Washington) uses half-court offense on at least about 80 percent of its possessions. No team (including Washington) can rely on transition alone. The Huskies must be doing something right on the half court. (Including maybe, just maybe, running plays every once in a while.) Last year, the inimitable Luke Winn charted the half-court efficiency of the nation’s 10 fastest teams from multi-bid leagues. Washington was tied with Duke for the most points per possession.

Speaking of screens, when is the last time UW successfully ran a pick-and-roll?

Well, I was unable to watch the Seattle U game as closely as I would have liked, but probably then. To return to the Winn well, last January he looked at the five most efficient pick-and-roll scorers in the country. Isaiah Thomas ranked fourth.

This is a concrete example of Romar’s inability to coach basketball, and the numbers bear this out. In games decided by 5 points or less, Romar owns a disturbing 57-65 record, including a 17-26 clip since the 2006-07 season, the year after Roy’s senior season. Good coaches win close games. Romar does not. And so long as Romar does not stress the details, I suspect this trend will continue.

Admittedly, this is a point I must concede. Profane protestations aside, this is a decent sample size. Based on the Huskies .722 record in non-close games over that span and my research on close games in the NBA, Washington should have gone about 25-18 in those games. Romar’s performance is about 2.4 standard deviations below that expectation, which is approaching statistical significance. At the same time, we’re talking about a difference of eight wins over five-plus seasons. The practical significance of the difference is much lower, but if feels painful, which leads into the second aspect of the argument.

The third and final type of Romar-loss is the out-classed and overmatched loss – the loss that reveals UW is not ready to play in the upper echelons of the college basketball elite – as reflected by Duke’s victory over UW in December. [ … ] This loss showed a continued pattern of UW’s failure to win against big-time college basketball teams on the national stage (see UW’s loss to UNC last year, UW’s two losses to Kentucky and Michigan St. in Maui last year, UW’s loss to West Virginia in the Sweet 16 two years ago, UW’s loss Purdue in 2009, UW’s loss to UConn in the Sweet 16 in 2006, and UW’s loss to Louisville in 2005 in the Sweet 16 as a No. 1 seed). In fact, more often than not, UW is outclassed when it plays a team that has a better coach and a better national reputation than UW, despite its roughly equivalent if not higher talent-level.

I know many non-Huskies who perceive an elitism, a feeling of superiority amongst Washington fans. I hate to admit it, but I see the same thing, and I think it’s the source of much of the Romar criticism. You know who else isn’t ready to compete with the upper echelon of college basketball teams? NEARLY EVERYONE IN COLLEGE BASKETBALL. If it was easy, it wouldn’t be an echelon; it would be everybody.

This gets at the fundamental question of realistic expectations. In fairness to the Husky elitists, Washington is a prominent program representing a large research university in a major city, all of which adds up to a large athletic budget (32nd in the country in 2010, and 41st for men’s basketball, per BBstate.com). Surely, expectations should be higher here than in Corvallis. At the same time, those advantages were also available to Romar’s predecessors, who made the NCAA tournament a combined three times in the 17 seasons prior to his arrival. The Romar era alone accounts for more than a third of the program’s total tournament appearances. Maybe he just had the good fortune to come along at a time when Seattle began producing pros at a prodigious rate, but it’s important to remember that Bob Bender was unable to keep talent like Michael Dickerson and Jason Terry at home, as Romar has on a regular basis.

Reasonable people can disagree about the standards for the Huskies’ success. The “never advanced past the Sweet 16” line, by contrast, is inarguably stupid. Are we really to believe that if Mike Jensen hadn’t fouled Marcus Williams or if Louisville hadn’t been massively underseeded in 2005 that Romar would be a better coach? Maybe the argument would just change to “never past the Elite Eight.” Either way, deep NCAA tournament runs are much too random for teams outside the top 10 to earn such heavy weight in the discussion of Romar’s performance.

There’s an interesting context to the timing of this discussion. As Romar and company prepare to face Washington State in Sunday’s first leg of the basketball Apple Cup, Washington’s women teams are preparing to meet on the hardwood as well. The Cougars’ coach, June Daugherty, held the same position at Washington until her contract was allowed to expire at the conclusion of the 2006-07 season. Then-Athletic Director Todd Turner explained that he wanted a “positive buzz” about the team, which had regularly made the NCAA tournament but was not as consistently near the top of the conference as the men’s team under Romar. (Tournament-only analysts will note that Daugherty did lead the Huskies to the 2001 Elite Eight, an obvious sign of her superiority to Romar.)

After striking out on the big-name coaches available, Turner replaced Daugherty with Duke assistant Tia Jackson, who went on to go 45-75 over four long seasons at the helm. By last season, Daugherty had built a Washington State team that had not won more than two conference games in any of the four years prior to her arrival into a program that is just as competitive in the Pac-10 as Washington.

The Husky women are now in good hands under former Xavier coach Kevin McGuff, but it will take years to undo the damage of Turner’s unrealistic expectations. To the handful of Washington fans who want Romar replaced, I urge: Be careful what you wish for.