Archive for January 3rd, 2009

Budinger: Unrealistic Expectations

Chase Budinger

Chase Budinger

Over the last six games, not three, we have seen Chase Budinger’s numbers dropping off withstartling consistency. During that span his points per game is down to 13.3 and he’s shooting 30% from the field and 29% from beyond the arc. If you want to categorize this as a slump, and not just a shooting slump, be my guest. Afterall, the first five games of the season he was averaging 23 points a game, and shooting roughly 71% from the field and beyond the arc. Trust me, however, when I say that there is a reason for the, at times, erratic production we’ve seen from Budinger over the past two seasons. That reason is unrealistic expectations on Budinger.

During the past two seasons we have seen two more distinctive inconstincies - a four game anomaly in December ‘07, and a three game anomaly in February of ‘08. Combined, Budinger averaged 10.5 points, shot 30% from the field, and a meager 18% from beyond the arc. He eclipsed 10 points on three separate occasions with his highest total being 18 points. During that game Budinger shot 36 percent, but managed to get to the line for 9 of those points.

These three slumps, or anomalies if you will, are a product of Budinger trying to be something he’s not – a go-to guy. Sure, Budinger has the capability of dropping upwards of 30 points on a team but we can’t expect that type of production every night. Unfortunately, the team make-up the past two seasons has required that Budinger be a primary weapon on offense. That’s our first mistake is not only expecting him to be that, but demanding it of him because we need that type of player on the floor.

Let’s put Budinger’s play into perspective. Pretend that, heaven forbid, Budinger had gone to UCLA instead of Arizona. Budinger would have offensive weapons around him like Darren Collison, Kevin Love, and Josh Shipp to name but a few. Budinger would start on the wing, but he wouldn’t be the focal point of the offense. Budinger would resume a role player position similar to that of Michael Roll this season. In this context the 10.5 and 13.3 points per game averages wouldn’t be a “slump” but an unexpected surprise.

My point here isn’t that Michael Roll is as good as Budinger is, or that Budinger would be averaging that – chances are he’d be averaging closer to 14 or 16 points per game as a role player. My point is that Budinger has the player attributes of a role player, not a leading scorer or primary offensive weapon.

Still don’t believe me? Take a look at his freshman year and you won’t find a single slump. Sure he had a few games where he didn’t pour in the points, but you can’t find a single stretch that was marked by poor shooting and poor offensive production. Budinger was not the go-to guy on the team – that belonged to Marcus Williams – and he had a good offensive cast around him with Shakur, Radenovic, Williams, and McClellan. Of course, it helped that he had Olson coaching that year too.

That’s the second unrealistic expectation we have on Budinger, and don’t even realize it. Budinger has shown little growth in the last two seasons – under the coaching of O’Neill and Pennell. Don’t get me wrong, they each had/have their strengths as coaches and have developed Budinger a little bit. We’re not expecting a small development out of Budinger, we’re expecting him to transform from a role player into a leading scorer. Should we really expect that a couple of interim coaches are capable of that type of player transformation?

Bottom line is this, until we can step outside the performances and see the scenario in its full context we will continue to be disappointed in Budinger. Budinger is NBA quality, but he’s not your go-to guy, and he doesn’t have the skill set to be the focal point offensively or defensively. If you want to be disappointed in something, be disappointed in the circumstance that has put Budinger into a role he was never meant to be in, not in Budinger himself.

Are We Really This Bad?

Considering the fact that this is a post-game brief, you’d think I was talking about the Arizona Wildcats and their performance against CAL. You’d think I was talking about the fact the ‘Cats shot just over 21% from beyond the arc and turned the ball over twice as much as their opponent. You would think I was talking about how Russ Pennell couldn’t even come close to keeping up with the adjustments and tactical decisions by Mike Montgomery. You could think all of those things, but you’d be wrong.

Dear Band Wagon Fans...

What I’m talking about is the wishy-washy fans that have shown up. Fans that praise Pennell and want him to take over the program after the victories over Gonzaga and Kansas, but turnaround and want the guy gone when we lose to a prolific shooting team in CAL.

I’m talking about the fans that praise Jamelle Horne and Kyle Fogg and are ready to name them impact players after they post 23 points and 14 rebounds a game for three games, only to want them off the team or benched for the season following a bad performance.

I’m talking about the fans that before the season begins are proclaiming Chase Budinger first team PAC-10 and a Lottery Pick in the NBA draft, but have turned their backs on him when he’s lost his shooting stroke.

I am ashamed at some of the fans that are out there. It’s okay to be a skeptic it’s even okay to be a homer with rose-colored glasses. But it is completely ridiculously to be so spineless, so wishy-washy that the Wildcats are only as good as their last game. If you’re one of those fans, please, just jump ship now so the rest of us don’t have to listen to you any longer.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m in full agreement that Arizona’s performance last night was anything but stellar. Does one bad performance mean that this is a bad team? Certainly not, and I don’t believe it is fair to judge how good or bad these kids are based off of one game. After all, in two late December games, the ‘00-’01 Wildcats lost by 18 and the ‘92-’93 team lost by 15. You have to judge a team by their progression and performance over the course of a season (to be fully fair), or at the very least a month.

Think about it this way, how many of the tough games we’ve played this year do you think would turn out differently if there was a rematch? UAB and Gonzaga definitely would. Texas A&M most likely would. UNLV and Kansas probably would. At least with CAL we’ll get another chance. So chances are, Arizona isn’t really as good as they were when they beat Gonzaga and they certainly aren’t as bad as when they lost to UAB. They’re somewhere in the middle.

So, like I said, for all you wishy-washy fans, it’s time to grow a backbone or jump off the bandwagon because anytime you have as much inexperience as the Wildcats do, you are in for a bumpy ride.

UA @ CAL Recap:

The Good: Hill 18 points, 11 rebounds. Horne 10 points 7 rebounds.
The Bad: Kyle Fogg 0 points, 4 turnovers. Chase Budinger 4-16 shooting, 9 points.
The Ugly: 3-Point Shooting %’s : Arizona 23.1%, CAL46.7%. Turnover Differential: +6, A/TO ratio: 0.91


 

January 2009
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Categories

PAC-10 Power Rankings

1. Cal 2. Washington 3. UCLA 4. Arizona 5. Oregon 6. Oregon State 7. Arizona State 8. Washington State 9. Stanford 10. USC

Blog Stats

  • 8,626 hits