Lavin has been maligned as a poor X's and O's guy and the like. In final judgement, the one department I don't think he'll be maligned in is getting through to the players. Harrison might be a tough nut to crack, but I have little doubt that Lavin will get Harrison on the same page and producing like we all know Harrison can. If X's and O's isn't Lavin's strength, recruiting and player management is. There's not don't that Lavin loves Harrison and vice versa. I believe we'll see a better Harrison and in all likelihood Harrison will end up either coaching some day or broadcasting with Lavin as a long term mentor. Bottom line is that Lavin's player's love playing for him, but more than that seem to gravitate back regardless. It's a testament to people that care regardless of baskeball.
One man's "maligned" is another's "fairly characterized."
Lavin has missed the NCAA's twice in his entire coaching career. 3 times if you consider the season he was derailed by cancer and wasn't on the sideline. I'd argue that we likely were an NCAA team is year if Lavin didn't make the tough decision to bench Harrison. We didn't excel this season because we couldn't shoot, not X's and O's. Maybe you hate statistics, but 5 Sweet 16's, one Elite 8 and the NCAA tourney almost every year of his tenure doesn't go hand-in-hand with that characterization. Talent doesn't just assemble itself and advance to the Sweet 16. Look at UK this season. The only tangible data we have to evaluate proficiency is his coaching record which is quite good. We have a SJU team next year that looks on paper like they can go a few rounds deep. Not sure why people think his X's and O's are that bad with zero data to back up that characterization.
Some are of that opinion because there are appraisal tools besides ultimate result data to assess coaches, namely watching the games. Certainly I do not disagree with you that Lavin's record speaks for itself. What the root cause of that success has been (talent, X/O, program management/motivation), however, is open for debate. Quite frankly I don't really care what the cause is as long as he has that success here, which I fully believe he is on his way to doing, which is why I continue to be thrilled he is our coach.
That said if we are purely talking about his X's and O's ability, coaches shouldn't be evaluated based upon total team performance alone; they should be evaluated relative to the talent they are coaching. I've heard people say in response to criticisms of Giants' OC Tom Gilbride, "his team finishes in the Top 10 in total offense virtually every year." So? Did he have the type of talent that they should have been Top 5 or even Top 3? If so then he underperformed. Conversely, an OC that gets middle-of-the-pack production from a bottom-feeding roster is overperforming (and outperforming Gilbride as a coach), even though his team performance is worse than Gilbride's.
The question for Lavin is did he have the talent such that at least one of those Sweet 16s was Final 4 material...or was he taking talent that had no business being in the Sweet 16 farther than they should have gone in the first place? The Sweet 16 appearances themselves are not informative on their own so much as what Lavin did to get them there vs. what he didn't do to get them further. Same can be said for this past season.
My guess is it's somewhere in the middle. He's an elite recruiter and program manager which drives his success, and a so-so in game coach enough that it doesn't get in the way too much of the talent he's assembled and the way he's able to relate to and motivate them. Point being, he certainly leaves something to be desired in the X/O category that can't be explained through his UCLA teams' success 10 years ago. Rotation, timeout usage, some guys having all the rope they need while others get pulled after one mistake, and most importantly whatever it was we were doing when we had the ball this year (don't think it's proper to refer to that as offense). As you mentioned we shot the ball terribly, but were also 202nd in the country in assists (12 per game for the whole team!). That's a severe deficiency in sharing the basketball. No doubt you have to make shots to record assists, but that's a two way street. You have to move and share the ball to get better looks and make more shots. The former is largely on the players, but the latter is on the staff/system. If we couldn't get out in transition our "offense" was stagnant if not non-existant, and in either event ineffective and boring to watch. That's why some people feel his X/O's are not strong.