Cal Men's Basketball: Coach Mark Madsen's Stat Profile

A dive into what Madsen's Utah Valley teams achieved as we learn about Cal's new coach.

Cal Basketball @CalMBBall

Checks off all the boxes ✅ @madsen_mark x #GoBears

Welcome to the first in a series of articles breaking down Mark Madsen’s coaching career in an attempt to project what kind of coach he might be in Berkeley.

Four years ago, I did the same thing with Mark Fox, and it was pretty easy to project things out because Fox had been a college coach for 14 years and there was a ton of data and records to analyze. Madsen is both younger AND has spent much of his coaching career on the pro side, so we have comparatively less information. But we’ll make an attempt anyway.

First: necessary context. Utah Valley plays in the Western Athletic Conference. Around a decade ago, the WAC was a solid mid-major conference, but the Mountain West stole away every good program other than New Mexico State, and the WAC had to rebuild with a bunch of mis-matched schools trying to survive the transition from the DII level, and has had almost constantly shifting membership over the last decade as a result. No, the University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC) is no longer in the WAC, but that’s no weirder sounding than Chicago State, Lamar, or Tarleton St..

But against all odds, the WAC has been getting better at basketball, and actually ranked 11th out of 32 conferences by average Kenpom ranking, just behind the WCC and Conference USA.

So while you should adjust the numbers below in your head to account for the difference between WAC talent levels and power conference talent levels, don’t adjust TOO hard. The WAC isn’t the Pac-12, but neither is it the Patriot League.

Statistical Overview

OK, we’re starting with big picture stuff: in four years, Mark Madsen oversaw a slow but steady climb. In year one, his Utah Valley team was pretty rough, with an offense and a defense that both ranked outside the top 200, and a team that went 8-19 against D1 level competition. By year four his team climbed to just outside the top 50, thanks in large part to a rugged, borderline top 25 defense.

That, by itself, is noteworthy. Mid-major/low-major schools don’t typically build high end defenses. When you don’t have access to top talent, you can still scheme a good offense, but it’s hard to build a defense without talent. There were only a handful of non-power conference schools with a better defense than Utah Valley, and most of them were well-established mid-majors like San Diego St., VCU, and St. Mary’s.

It’s encouraging that, under Madsen, his Utah Valley team improved on both sides of the ball pretty much every single year. The offense got more efficient every season, and the defense improved in three out of four seasons. Some of that was a function of increased age/experience across the roster, but a lot of it was sharp roster additions each year. For just one example: Madsen’s biggest star this year, Aziz Bandaogo, arrived just a year ago as a transfer from Akron.

One item worth addressing: when I initial looked at Madsen’s resume back in late 2022 when we were first compiling a list of potential new head coaches, I didn’t give Madsen a deep dive look for one primary reason: I saw that he had taken over a pretty good Utah Valley after Mark Pope left for BYU and couldn’t sustain that success. But on further review, that was unfair for one main reason: nearly everybody from pope’s last UVU team left. Pope brought three players with him to BYU and a bunch of dudes graduated or transferred. Of the 11 players who saw on-court action in 2019, only two were on the roster in 2020 and none were on the roster in 2021. Madsen had to completely turn over the roster in two off-seasons.

Offensive stats

Utah Valley stats: rows are in reverse chronological order - 2022-23 at the top, 2019-20 at the bottom

We’re going to start out on the side of the ball that I have comparatively more questions. Mark Madsen’s UVU offenses were not bad, and as noted above got better each year. But there are a couple of concerning areas too.

One thing that stood out both from the stats and from watching UVU’s NIT semi-final game against UAB? Madsen’s offenses are aggressive. That comes out in terms of the pace, which is up-tempo without going crazy, but I noticed it more in the passing. UVU was willing to throw a dangerous pass if it meant that competing that pass would lead to a shot at the rim.

And you can see that in the numbers: UVU has pretty consistently had a high percentage of their baskets come via assists (see the A% column) while also having high turnover percentages. I’d like to hope that Madsen can find a way to maintain that assist level while cutting down a bit on the turnovers, and maybe the potential access to more polished power conference level recruits might change that . . . though his teams will also be facing more athletic defenses, so it’s a double edged sword.

The other thing that jumps out is the free throw rate - his teams draw a lot of fouls. And again, that stood out in the NIT, where a constant barrage of high pick and rolls and passing to cutters moving downhill towards the basket led to a ton of contact near the hoop.

Madsen’s offensive numbers have generally lagged behind his defensive numbers, and there was an occasionally lack of polish to what I watched in the NIT. But I have no doubt that we’ll at least appreciate the change stylistically. The passive, slow down offense we’ve watched for the past four years is miles away from what I watched UVU run last Tuesday.

I’ll admit that I’m a little apprehensive about iffy 3 point shooting numbers, both by volume and percentage. The optimist in me might wonder if you have to make choices recruiting in the WAC between, say, shooting or rim protection (see below) knowing that you can’t have it all. The pessimist in me wonders if the NBA big man might be a little old fashioned in his shot selection preferences. On the other hand, we’re talking about a dude who was an assistant coach for the Lakers during the Curry era of the NBA, so it’s hard to believe he won’t recognize the value of the 3 point shot.

Defensive Stats

Utah Valley stats: rows are in reverse chronological order - 2022-23 at the top, 2019-20 at the bottom

Look at that 2 point percentage defense! I’m swooning!

OK, but seriously: Mark Madsen loves himself a shot blocker, and his UVU teams have been littered with dudes that he has unleashed to go attempt to block shots. Despite pretty heavy roster churn among his post defenders, Madsen’s teams have always suppressed 2 point shooting and blocked a bunch of shots. It’s clearly both a strategic point of emphasis as well as a coaching developmental skill - which makes sense, considering Madsen’s skillset as a player.

The other thing I like seeing is that despite a clear focus on contesting shots inside the arc, Madsen’s teams have also prevented opponents from attempting three pointers. it suggests a balanced defensive blueprint, and an ability to teach both individual and team defense at a high level.

You could pick nits - Madsen’s teams don’t force turnovers, which is a pretty classic trade-off made by many coaches. And as you might guess for a shot-blocking team, Madsen’s squads have occasionally committed more fouls than you would prefer. But it’s hard to expect better defensive performances from a mid-major program without stability and prior success.

Overview

There are no glaring red statistical flags that scream “this dude doesn’t know how to coach!” The defensive numbers are excellent and the offensive numbers reasonably encouraging. But the record is also slim and perhaps not something we can confidently say is transferrable - just four years, and all at a school that is very different than Cal both in terms of its place in the college basketball ecosystem, typical recruiting profile, and (I would guess) campus culture.

Which means that next time around, we’ll be looking at how Mark Madsen went about identifying and building his roster at UVU, and trying to project how he might try to build his team at Cal.