Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 95

Thread: Paris Austin Transferring

  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by caltagjohnson View Post
    Winston does come in highly regarded. He was All City. He scored 43 points against Dyson's team (17-22 from the field and 5-7 from three). Jones was at that game. He also scored 19 points in a state playoff game. He came in under the radar because his team had a number of D-1 prospects. He hits from all over the floor. He is at least 2 inches taller than Austin. The PG job will be his when he comes in. That gives him a year head start. However we can certainly use 2 guys at PG. It is a little like "you can't have too many DB". Depth should be good in 2018. Austin will be a solid contributer.
    I hope Winston does well, but he was third on his team in assists per game at about 4 per game. Austin was more highly-regarded coming out of HS (he was 1st Team All-State in 2015) and averaged about 19 ppg, 7 apg, 6 rpg, 3 spg on a State Title team. Obviously, when it comes down to it, whoever produces will play, but I find it interesting that you're as forceful as you are in this opinion.
    Last edited by tsubamoto2001; 05-17-2017 at 06:51 PM.

  2. #77
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the land of peach blossoms
    Posts
    2,204
    I hope they both do well. Strong point guard play will be key if we want to get anywhere near the top of the conference and the tournament.

  3. #78
    Saw Austin play a couple of times in HS. I never saw him play at Boise. When I saw his HS games he was one of those guards who tried to do it himself. I'm sure he has changed. In any event in 2018 we are in good shape at guard. We seem to get good wing players but whiff on the bigs. I would rather have gotten Jeter.

  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    With all due respect, I don't give a hoot whether Paris can make threes.
    With all due respect, you don't understand the modern game of basketball if you think three point shooting ability is not important for any guard

  5. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    With all due respect, I don't give a hoot whether Paris can make threes. The position he is to play is point guard, not shooting guard. The important qualities for a point guard are can he run the offense, can he set up teammates, can he make assists, can he finish in the lane, doing it all without too many turnovers, and can he slow down or shut down the opposing point guard? Based on our needs for next season, a point guard's ability to make long range shots would just be gravy.
    If you can't make threes, defenders can play off you, making it harder to get in the lane and finish or set up teammates for easy buckets or open threes. You should certainly care if a point guard can make threes. It's not the 1960s anymore. Defenses are much smarter and play much harder.

  6. #81
    Long post coming- Bob Cousy, Guy Rodgers and the decline and death of basketball

  7. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by grandmastapoop View Post
    It's not the 1960s anymore. Defenses are much smarter and play much harder.
    Oh now you've done it.

  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by concernedparent View Post
    Oh now you've done it.
    ;)

  9. #84
    Loyal Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    3,401
    Quote Originally Posted by grandmastapoop View Post
    If you can't make threes, defenders can play off you, making it harder to get in the lane and finish or set up teammates for easy buckets or open threes. You should certainly care if a point guard can make threes. It's not the 1960s anymore. Defenses are much smarter and play much harder.
    Ever hear of Jason Kidd? 28.6% on threes as a freshman, his Cal team's most successful year. Prentice McGruder? 22.2% on threes for his two years at Cal, and a Sweet 16. Ayinde Ubaka? 25.9% in year one and 29.7% in year two. Jorge Gutierrez? 30.6% as a frosh. None of these players was even born in the 1960's, let alone played back then.

    Is it nice to have a point guard who can also shoot threes? Of course it is. But it is not absolutely essential, like the other skills. Especially for Cal, as we haven't had a point guard since Jorge who can stop the opposing point guard. If a point guard is looking to play in the NBA, he will need to be able to shoot threes.

    Individual defenders were better on average in the 1960's than today. Team defenses are better on average today. Defenses have to be smarter today, because the defenders on average don't have very good fundamentals, and can't stop anybody. Coaches devised defenses so players could help their teammates more, and that is because they they had to. The individual defender doesn't have to worry much about his man getting by him, because he knows a teammate will be there to help (theoretically, that is). As to playing harder on defense, I doubt it, but you can't measure it, because modern players have the advantage of so many timeouts, they shouldn't be getting tired (theoretically, that is). I played against my father and his some of his teammates, and they played tougher and harder defense than we did. These players today on average, don't play hard on defense, other than a few guys like Jorge Gutierrez. That is what made him a standout defender. I don't see another defender at Cal these days who could have defended well enough to start for Newell, but Jorge would have been a Newell starter. You do see the difference between Jorge and the other college players he faced or played with, don't you?

  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    Ever hear of Jason Kidd? 28.6% on threes as a freshman, his Cal team's most successful year. Prentice McGruder? 22.2% on threes for his two years at Cal, and a Sweet 16. Ayinde Ubaka? 25.9% in year one and 29.7% in year two. Jorge Gutierrez? 30.6% as a frosh. None of these players was even born in the 1960's, let alone played back then.

    Is it nice to have a point guard who can also shoot threes? Of course it is. But it is not absolutely essential, like the other skills. Especially for Cal, as we haven't had a point guard since Jorge who can stop the opposing point guard. If a point guard is looking to play in the NBA, he will need to be able to shoot threes.

    Individual defenders were better on average in the 1960's than today. Team defenses are better on average today. Defenses have to be smarter today, because the defenders on average don't have very good fundamentals, and can't stop anybody. Coaches devised defenses so players could help their teammates more, and that is because they they had to. The individual defender doesn't have to worry much about his man getting by him, because he knows a teammate will be there to help (theoretically, that is). As to playing harder on defense, I doubt it, but you can't measure it, because modern players have the advantage of so many timeouts, they shouldn't be getting tired (theoretically, that is). I played against my father and his some of his teammates, and they played tougher and harder defense than we did. These players today on average, don't play hard on defense, other than a few guys like Jorge Gutierrez. That is what made him a standout defender. I don't see another defender at Cal these days who could have defended well enough to start for Newell, but Jorge would have been a Newell starter. You do see the difference between Jorge and the other college players he faced or played with, don't you?
    Yes, I've heard of Jason Kidd, one of the greatest point guards to ever live. Did you read my post closely? I said if a point guard can't shoot threes, it is "harder to get in the lane and finish or set up teammates for easy buckets or open threes." I didn't say it was impossible, and it's certainly not impossible for one of the greatest to ever play the game. If you're contending Paris Austin is the next Jason Kidd (I know you are not), then I'd agree - who cares if he can shoot threes. But he's not the next Jason Kidd, and a good outside shot is an extremely valuable tool for a point guard, even for the great ones - like Jason Kidd (who did develop a respectable outside shot, and other modern greats like Steve Nash and Chris Paul.

    As for the other arguments, I will respectfully disagree. The game and the players are so much faster now, and have such better handles, that what you think is not trying as hard is simply demonstrating it is damn near impossible to stay in front of a great guard these days.

  11. #86
    well i didnt think ayinde was any good as a frosh. teams definetely took advantage of him being a brick layer that year.

  12. #87
    Agree with GMP, in that you either have to have an outside shot to keep the defender honest, or be devastatingly quick on the crossover, in order to play the point successfully. Case in point, Sam Singer, who wasn't quick enough to just beat his man off the dribble from the top, and couldn't shoot well enough to draw defenders closer. Kidd, Magruder and Ubaka were all substantially quicker than Sam, with Kidd the quickest of all. He simply couldn't be guarded one-on-one in college.

  13. #88
    Loyal Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    3,401
    Quote Originally Posted by grandmastapoop View Post
    Yes, I've heard of Jason Kidd, one of the greatest point guards to ever live. Did you read my post closely? I said if a point guard can't shoot threes, it is "harder to get in the lane and finish or set up teammates for easy buckets or open threes." I didn't say it was impossible, and it's certainly not impossible for one of the greatest to ever play the game. If you're contending Paris Austin is the next Jason Kidd (I know you are not), then I'd agree - who cares if he can shoot threes. But he's not the next Jason Kidd, and a good outside shot is an extremely valuable tool for a point guard, even for the great ones - like Jason Kidd (who did develop a respectable outside shot, and other modern greats like Steve Nash and Chris Paul.

    As for the other arguments, I will respectfully disagree. The game and the players are so much faster now, and have such better handles, that what you think is not trying as hard is simply demonstrating it is damn near impossible to stay in front of a great guard these days.
    I’d agree that the three point shot is a valuable tool for a point guard to have, just that it is not completely necessary. I was exaggerating to make my point which was that the other tools are so much more important, especially when you are rebuilding, like Cal is now. The only thing I don’t like so much about a point guard with a three point shot is that you hope it doesn’t go to his head, and go all-Allen Iverson on you, and forget his duties to his teammates to make them better by setting them up for open looks.

    I’ve grown tired of watching Cal with very little leadership on the floor year after year. How long have we gone without having a field general on the floor? Moore showed plenty of flashes, but needs more maturity and experience. When Wallace had to lead, he usually called his own number. Cobbs was the same, to a lesser extent. Randle and Midge were about 50-50. The last one I liked as a leader was McGruder. Right now, I’d even settle for a Legans or Jelani Gardner (without the off court baggage). Just someone with a little court sense. Unfortunately, the kid who had that departed for Kansas.

    With all due respect, I do not agree with the broad generalizations that the game and players are faster now. The game is slower now, with fewer fast breaks, and is basically a half-court game. The NCAA had to decrease the shot clock (again) to make them play faster. With the three point shot, so many players don’t move now, but hang on the perimeter waiting for a pass. It is OK if you are the Warriors with great personnel. But the players do not move a lot, and many teams have so much trouble getting a shot off in the allotted time.

    Some players today are faster, but not all. Just because the world record for sprints has lowered over time does not mean that ALL players are faster now. Ansley Truitt and Bob Presley could run any Pac12 center from last season out of the gym, with the exception of the ones at Oregon or USC, perhaps, and they would leave K2 far behind in a footrace. Ditto for Powe, Thurman, Kravish, MSF, Tarwater, Bak Bak and more. Guards like CJ and Chenier could run Wallace, Singer, PC, Powers, and a host of others off the floor. Jaylen Brown was the fastest player for his height I ever saw at Cal, but the rest of his team was pretty slow. They couldn’t get out on a fast break. Some players are faster than some of the old timers, and some are not.

    As to handles, I wouldn’t call them better today. Players today are allowed to carry the ball. That is what gives them the better handle. It is not necessarily any better skill. That along with allowing the travel on the first step, eliminating the hand-check, and virtually eliminating the charge, and allowing the dribbler to push or hit his defender with the off hand, gives the ball handler a much easier time today to get past his defender. Julius Erving said it best, “We were not allowed to do many of the things that players today are allowed to do.”

  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff82 View Post
    Agree with GMP, in that you either have to have an outside shot to keep the defender honest, or be devastatingly quick on the crossover, in order to play the point successfully. Case in point, Sam Singer, who wasn't quick enough to just beat his man off the dribble from the top, and couldn't shoot well enough to draw defenders closer. Kidd, Magruder and Ubaka were all substantially quicker than Sam, with Kidd the quickest of all. He simply couldn't be guarded one-on-one in college.
    Funny you use singer as an example. Yeah, not a good 3 point shooter and not quick enough to drive on established defenders, but he was crafty with the ball and got to the rack fairly often (and finished)
    ‘I don’t need easy, I need possible.’ Jorge Gutierrez

  15. #90
    Loyal Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    3,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff82 View Post
    Agree with GMP, in that you either have to have an outside shot to keep the defender honest, or be devastatingly quick on the crossover, in order to play the point successfully. Case in point, Sam Singer, who wasn't quick enough to just beat his man off the dribble from the top, and couldn't shoot well enough to draw defenders closer. Kidd, Magruder and Ubaka were all substantially quicker than Sam, with Kidd the quickest of all. He simply couldn't be guarded one-on-one in college.
    As bluesaxe said, the three is a valuable tool for a point guard. But with all the rule changes in effect now that make it harder for a defender to stop a ball-handler from penetrating, a major college point guard should not need a good three point shot to be able to shake his defender and penetrate, and if he can’t, he should not be on the floor.

    I don’t disagree with you entirely, but I think to say the cause of Sam Singer’s failure to penetrate as much as we would have liked was more complicated than just not being able to make three point shots. As HoopDreams pointed out, Singer made many good drives to the basket and scored during his Cal career. I first saw him as a freshman in a scrimmage, and he was able then to consistently drive to the basket, but had his problems finishing the shot and scoring. Sam obviously worked very hard on finishing a drive. By his 2nd season he was making some shots at the rim, and by his third season, even more of them. In his 4th year, he had developed crossunder moves at the basket, could hook with either hand to finish, and had begun to shoot and make floaters near the basket. Here are the career two-point shooting percentages of some Cal point guards:

    Jason Kidd: 54%
    Jerome Randle: 50%
    Sam Singer: 49.5%
    Justin Cobbs: 49%
    Ty Wallace: 46%
    Ayinde Ubaka: 45%
    Charlie Moore: 41%
    Brandon Smith: 38%
    Prentice McGruder: 37%

    I’d say that Sam’s 49.5% was pretty darn good, considering that most teams wouldn’t let him shoot much in the lane, because they knew he couldn’t make free throws, so they just fouled him. Singer was not quick, but he was quicker and more efficient with the dribble than Wallace, Ubaka or Smith on that list, IMO. Ty and Ayinde had to do a lot of dribbling on the perimeter before they found a crease in the defense to drive. Singer made very few turnovers, so they were not stealing the ball from him when he tried to drive. What drove me nuts was how he passed up so many opportunities to drive. Whether that was him or whether Cuonzo Martin told him not to drive too much or what, I have no idea. Sam Singer was a favorite of mine. He worked so hard on his shooting and his defense. His defense improved so much over his first three years, that he became a very tough defender, maybe the best defensive guard on his team. That is why he earned minutes, not for his offense, IMO.

    When I first saw Singer, I did not feel he was a PAC12 level player. He had averaged over 30 points a game in high school, but it became apparent that his high school competition level was not very high. I feel that Singer’s biggest problem was confidence. Not only in his shooting, but in his decisions on offense. When to drive or not, when to pass or not. He never really took over the team, or took on a leadership role. He seemed shy about it, and to go to coach Martin very early in last season and ask Martin to replace him with Charlie Moore just tells me that Singer was not an aggressive competitor. He should have been trying with all his might to keep that first string point guard job. The competition with Moore should have made him better, but it didn’t. I also think the rule change in 2016 of defenders being required to give an offensive player more space, along with Coach Martin’s instructions to defenders to raise their hands high in the air as the dribbler started to go by them, took away much of Singer’s main skill, man defense. By the last 5 or 6 games of the season, Singer had lost so much of his confidence and his ability that he was playing few minutes and contributed little. I also wonder if Martin could have handled Singer differently, to get him to play harder and with more confidence.
    Last edited by SFCityBear; 05-20-2017 at 12:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •