Originally Posted by SFCityBear
The 2 full season Leon Powe played at Cal, he shot 49% from the floor. (I will take that from any player)...
To say he was taking bad shots left and right, if so, not easy so do that and shoot 49% for your career. Being a leading point scorer, he averaged 12 shots per game for his career. As point of reference, this year's top 2 scorers, Crabbe and Cobb combined are averaging 12 shots each per game.
The leading scorers on the team (or best scorers) have to take the most shots...that is kinda how it works.
Powe's stat line at Cal: 17.8 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and 49% fgp.
His last year, he averaged a double double for the season, after having to sit out a season due to injury.
Look at Powe’s Sr season, his stat line of: 20.5/10.1/50%, is up there with some of the best Cal big men’s season of all time… the only other player in the history of Cal Basketball who averaged a double/double for points/rebounds in a season is Mark McNamara who in his Sr season stat line was 22/12.6/70%
Last edited by gobears; 12-14-2012 at 02:36 PM.
Dead on, plus Braun comparison not correct
Braun came into Cal on probation and playing off campus. Both of those had a big impact on his ability to recruit, challenges Monty has not faced.
Originally Posted by calumnus
Secondly, I think BB had more success recruiting bigs early in his tenure than has Monty.
Lampley left as our all time leading scorer and was the P10 POY. He might have been 6'5" but he played power forward in college. I'd take two more of him right now, thank you very much. Francisco Elson was a solid contributor. He had great size, tremendous defensive quickness and he was a decent scorer and rebounder. Played in the NBA. He would be in our rotation this year for sure. Solomon Hughes took a few years to develop but he was very solid as a junior and senior. Amit Tamir had two good years and Jamal Sampson had one very good year. That's five good players in five years. Compared to Kravish, MSF and Solomon, I think Braun's record was better especially given the differing circumstances.
True Blue Golden Bear
Uh, you talking Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame? College Basketball Hall of Fame? Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame?
Originally Posted by calumnus
If the latter, please provide a list of reasons why his candidacy should be considered.
Well the John R. Wooden Legends of Coaching Award for one.
Originally Posted by concordtom
The Legends of Coaching Award recognizes the lifetime achievement of coaches who exemplify Coach Wooden's high standards of coaching success and personal achievement. When selecting the individual, the Wooden Award Committee considers a coach's character, success rate on the court, graduating rate of student athletes, his or her coaching philosophy, and identification with the goals of the John R. Wooden Award.
Season Coach School
1998–99 Dean Smith North Carolina
1999–00 Mike Krzyzewski Duke
2000–01 Lute Olson Arizona
2001–02 Denny Crum Louisville
2002–03 Roy Williams Kansas
2003–04 Mike Montgomery Stanford
2004–05 Jim Calhoun Connecticut
2005–06 Jim Boeheim Syracuse
2006–07 Gene Keady Purdue
2007–08 Pat Summitt Tennessee
2008–09 Rick Barnes Texas
2009–10 Billy Donovan Florida
2010–11 Tom Izzo Michigan State
2011–12 Geno Auriemma Connecticut
Good point about playing off campus. I think Braun had a big challenge even without that. I don’t buy that the big salary Monty gets is somehow an incentive for a recruit, as Cal alumnus has implied, but not explained.
Originally Posted by CalHoopFan
Montgomery does have one problem, and that is how long recruits think he will stay with the Cal program. If I was a recruit, either wanting to play for a winning team, or wanting to prepare myself for the NBA, I would want the best coaching possible, and I would want that coaching for all the years I am college. That would be my #1 priority. Monty’s age and health problem could cause him to think of retiring, and recruits may question whether Cal would be the best place for them in light of this.
You and others continue to try and make the case for Braun and against Montgomery, but I think your vision is a little clouded because you remember all the players Braun had at Cal over 12 years and all the players Monty had at Stanford over an even longer period.
I am trying to focus on the first five years, and it should be the first four years plus 8 games of the 5th year, because those are the only results that can be compared fairly. Braun’s first five recruiting classes were from 1996 to 2000. You brought up Jamal Sampson and Amit Tamir, and both of those players arrived in 2001, Braun’s 6th year, so we can’t include them. Solomon Hughes had only one good year, 2001, where he averaged 11.6 pts and 4 rebs, but that was his 3rd year, and beyond the five years of results we are considering. His best previous year was 2000, where he averaged 5 pts and 3.4 rebs. Francisco Elson became a good player in the NBA, but at Cal, he averaged 5.4 ppg and 4.7 rpg, and 1.3 blocks.
As to Sean Lampley, I have mixed feelings about including him, because at 6-5, he is no big, and even though he played like one in college, the pros exposed his height disadvantage in a hurry. College players are bigger and more physical now, so I don’t know how he would do today. Still, a great player for Cal, and like you, I think I’d like to have him starting for us now. In 1998 and 1999, he averaged 10.4 ppg and 7 rpg.
As to Monty’s recruits, MSF in his 2nd year averaged 10.9 ppg and 7.4 rpg. Solomon last year averaged 6 ppg, 6.2 rpg, and 1.2 blocks. Kravish last year averaged 6.9 ppg, 5.6 rpg and 1.2 blocks. This year he is averaging 7.9 rpg. I am not including Thurman, because he was not recruited.
From this, I’d say that if we include Lampley as a big, then Braun had one recruit better than anyone Monty landed, so far. Lampley’s 3rd and 4th years were even better. If we don’t include Lampley, MSF’s career at Cal was better than any other big that Braun recruited. I would also say that at Cal, Solomon and Kravish already have had better careers than Elson and Hughes in his first 2 years. Solomon has 2 years left, Kravish, Behrens and Johnson 3 years, and Rodriguez and Frid 4 years. That is 16 player-years of future results that we have yet to look at before we can say that Braun’s first five classes are better than Montgomery’s first five classes.
My memory is different
I don't remember Ben Braun being responsible for or landing any Class of 1996 recruits but I may be wrong. With that assumption, Tamir and Sampson landed in his 5th class. Regardless, Monty has a lot of work to do to land two bigs as talented as Amit and Jamal this June.
Originally Posted by SFCityBear
I'm not big on looking at stats as the primary point of comparison. Teams score at very different levels and win using different paces of play. Slower teams that score less have fewer points and rebounds to go around. Hughes was a very solid player his junior and senior year. He shot @60% from the field, blocked shots, decent rebounder and played solid defense. His junior + senior year level of play would have him starting or very much in this years team rotation.
With Lampley, why does size even enter the equation? I want Cal to have a guy who can play down low, score, rebound and defend. If he's Leon Powe at 6'6" or Max at 7'3" changes only how they contribute and not that they do.
Regardless, a team on probation playing off campus vs. today means Monty should be clearly outstripping Braun in recruiting and unfortunately to date he has not.
Looking at Monty's recruiting success in only his first 5 years at Cal is flawed. He's been a coach in the Bay Area for 2 similar programs for 25 years. His contacts and pitch should get better over time. Your recruiting abilities don't automatically reset when you take a new job.
Tony G. was measured at 6' 3 1/2" by the NFL when they drafted him.
Originally Posted by SFCityBear
You may be right that Braun did not land any recruits in his first year, because he was hired in September 1996. I'd like to throw out Montgomery’s first year, because when he arrived, the recruiting season was basically already over. Two recruits had already been signed by Ben Braun. Even with Sim’s de-commit, it was too late to land any highly rated recruits.
Originally Posted by CalHoopFan
You want to move the goal posts to include more Braun recruits, and it does trouble me that so many people have formed a highly prejudicial opinion of Montgomery’s recruiting, without waiting until all the facts are in. You said yourself that it took two years for Solomon Hughes to develop into a decent player. Rod Benson and Harper Kamp both did nothing their first two years but came on strong in their third year. And yet, you are not willing to give a David Kravish, for example, who has played only one year, a chance to develop.
How can you honestly compare Kravish with Lampley or Hughes, who played 4 years each? How do you know that Johnson who has played 8 minutes, or Rodriguez and Frid, who have not played at all, will not turn out to be better bigs than anyone who Braun landed in his first five years?
Kravish is already a better player than Hughes ever was, IMO, but he certainly is a better player than Solomon Hughes was in his first two years. This year Kravish is averaging twice as many rebounds per game than Hughes averaged in his best years. Kravish blocks more shots and has already learned how to control the ball with his block, something I can’t remember Hughes or any Cal big doing under Braun.
What we can do is compare Kravish’s first year with the first year of other Braun recruits. His first year was better than the first year of Solomon Hughes, Francisco Elson, Rod Benson, Kevin Langford, Taylor Harrison, Max Zhang, Harper Kamp, Jordan Wilkes, David Paris, Omondi Amoke, and Gabe Hughes. His first year was better than the entire careers of some of these players.
As to Sampson, he was a one and done, and for that reason alone, I ought to omit him from the list. But even if we keep him on the list, is he better than Kravish or Solomon? He is a little better shot blocker at 1.7 per game as opposed to 1.2 for Richard and David. Both Kravish and Solo are a little better rebounders. Sampson had no offense whatsoever.
If we are going to include Lampley as a big, because he played much bigger than 6-5, then we have to exclude Tamir, because he played much smaller than his 6-10 size. He played mostly on the wing at Cal, and nearly half his shot attempts were threes. He had little inside offensive game, and was a poor defender and rebounder in the post. A good player, but not a big, in the modern sense.
How can you judge Montgomery’s recruiting so far, vs that of Braun? Braun’s players are finished with their careers. Of Monty’s recruits, only MSF is finished. MSF was pretty good. Collectively, the other seven bigs on the roster have 21 years of eligibility left at Cal to show their stuff. Please give them and Montgomery a chance to do so, before passing judgment.
Yes, looking at the first 5 years of Montgomery’s career at Cal is flawed. I am looking at the five years, because quite a number of fans looked at the same 5 years before I ever did, and pronounced judgment on Montgomery as doing a bad job of recruiting. They said that Braun had done a better job, citing players who Braun recruited after being on the job for 8 years or more. They said that Montgomery himself did a better job recruiting at Stanford, somehow equating the results of his 18 recruiting classes at Stanford with his 5 classes at Cal, as to this being somehow fair. It was the flaws in the original posts that caused me to look into the first five years of Braun and of Montgomery at Stanford.
Originally Posted by BC Calfan
The biggest flaw in their logic is that many basketball players improve over the years that they play, and some improve immensely, and they overlook this when passing judgment on Montgomery. Only one of Montgomery’s bigs, MSF, has finished his career. All Montgomery’s Cal bigs together have played a total of 8 seasons for him so far. Together, they have 21 seasons left to play. So, only 28% of the results are in.
Braun recruited for 12 years, brought in about 20 bigs, who played about 48 seasons for him, and their careers are done. Comparing 48 seasons of results for Braun vs 8 seasons of player results for Montgomery is a tad unfair, wouldn’t you say?
At Stanford, Montgomery recruited probably 30-35 bigs, who played probably a total of 100 seasons or so for him, and their careers are done. Is it fair to compare Montgomery’s 100 seasons of player results at Stanford with his 8 seasons of player results at Cal?
I don’t agree that Stanford and Cal are similar in any way. Admission standards are different. It is more difficult to get into Stanford, but once you are in, there is no danger of flunking out. The Stanford education is worth much more financially, not only the cost while at school, but the doors which are opened to you after graduation. Stanford has a long, long history of recruiting nationally. They have an extensive national network of recruiting contacts, while Cal’s is not as big, I’d guess. Cal’s athletic department is on shaky financial footing, which may affect the recruiting budget, and may affect how a recruit perceives Cal. Stanford is private, and if they run low on athletic funds, alumni write a check. They are out recruiting Cal in football by miles, and are in basketball as well. They generate much more revenue from sports than Cal does. They have a much nicer campus, not crowded, and isolated from some of the distractions of a Berkeley. Many of these things are attractive to parents.
I agree that Montgomery’s abilities should not have changed, and his pitch may be better, but he was away from college coaching for 5 years, and must have lost touch with much of recruiting. The older he gets, the more out of touch with young kids he will be, as it is with all of us. Now he has to recruit against his age being close to retirement, and his health may be a factor. Many recruits want to know that a coach will be around for years to come.
I am not saying Montgomery is doing a good job of recruiting. I am saying we do not know, because all the results are not in yet. Give it some time, and let’s see.
Of course I realize that. I admire Leon Powe’s character and inner strength every bit as much as you do. If a player is a good person off the court, is it then forbidden to have a critical view of the way he plays basketball? I also admire Brandon Smith as a person. Off the court, it is my understanding that he goes overseas in his summers on Christian missions, trying to help mankind. Why don’t you say anything when I criticize Brandon Smith for the way he plays? Is it OK to criticize Brandon because he is not a superstar? He gets ripped regularly on the BI, but I don’t see you complaining.
Originally Posted by socaltownie
Some of the biggest jerks around are great team players on the court, totally unselfish, always trying to make their teammates better. I am sure to step on some more toes here by having the audacity to say this, but Jason Kidd is such a player. One of the greatest point guards ever, maybe the greatest. Drunk driving convictions, hit and run conviction, all sorts of illegitimate kids running around, whose mothers had to go to court to get orders for Kidd to pay child support, accused of assault by at least one girlfriend and pleaded guilty on assaulting his wife. There is no rule that it makes any difference what kind of a person you are as to how you play basketball.
What does playing on one leg have to do with passing a basketball? Powe was healthy enough to take shots at the basket, healthy enough to get a lot of rebounds, healthy enough to play great defense, but he wasn’t healthy enough to pass the ball to a teammate who might have a more makeable shot? Powe averaged 1 assist per game at Cal, and 1 assist every 3 games in the NBA.
2) You must also realize (but I fear not) that Leon played his cal career on essentially ONE leg.
This story was told to me by a very close family member of a starter on the 2004 team. Perhaps it was just sour grapes by the player. One thing I can vouch for is that the offense went through Powe. A lot.
3) That player which "wrested the team away from Ben Braun" (honestly I found that nearly hysterical to read) helped them improve from 13 wins the year he sat out to 20 and an NCAA invite. The Bears fell back to just a 16 win season after Leon's departure.
There is nothing wrong with players taking control of a team from a lousy coach. It happens all the time. One year in high school, we had a bad coach. He gave us plays, and we refused to run them, and ran something else. Bill Russell did this at USF, when he felt Coach Woolpert was discriminating against black players. He led a team revolt and forced the coach to give the other black players more playing time. If I was a player on a Ben Braun team, I’d want to do just what Powe did, get Braun to give in to player demands for a better offensive system. I just didn’t like the offense that was run, with the ball too often going through Powe, IMO.
You also neglected to discuss Powe’s 2004 team. In 2003, Braun had a pretty good team, which went 22-9 and lost in the 2nd round of the NCAA. In 2004, Cal had lost Shipp and Wethers from that team, with Midgely and Tamir returning. Braun had the fabulous #6 rated recruiting class with Powe, Kately, and Ubaka coming in. It should have been easy to replace the departed players. Powe’s 2004 team went 13-15. Then Powe had surgery and missed the 2005 season. The 2005 team was 13-16 without Powe, no worse without Powe than they were with him.
And what is a four corner weave? The four corner was an offense popularized by Dean Smith at North Carolina. It was a stall, with no weaving. Scores got down into the 40’s and 50’s. Everybody hated it. The weave started in the 30’s, I think, as a 3-man play and was played into the 50’s. Newell ran 3, 4, and 5-man weaves, and the players never ventured into the corners. The dribbler would drive directly at the defender of a teammate. When he got close, he would hand the ball off, and screen the defender. The player receiving the ball would do the same thing to the defender of another teammate, and on and on until the defense got lost and someone got open for a layup. The beauty of it was the refs couldn’t call a moving pick, because the guy setting the screen was the dribbler. Watch Cal, and you will see Montgomery using a little of this technique today.
I guess I wasn't alive for Newell and the wonder of the four corner weave.
Thank you for the links, and I enjoyed reading them again. My post in reply to SoCal Townie addresses most of the other points you made.
Originally Posted by calumnus
As to scorers, if you look at the 5 greatest scorers of all time, Jabbar, Karl Malone, Jordan, Wilt, and Kobe, they averaged 4.5 assists as well. Wilt led the NBA in assists one year. The greatest scorer in NCAA history, Pete Maravich, averaged 5.4 assists. Powe averaged 1 assist at Cal, and 1 assist every 3 games in the NBA. Powe was double teamed a lot, because defenses knew that every time the ball went in to Powe, he was going to shoot. That is when one of his teammates was open, and Powe did not look for him. If Braun directed him to shoot every time he got the ball, then it is on Braun. But if Powe decided this on his own, then it is on him.
You also said that Powe “got the Celtics a championship”. I’m afraid there were quite a few other Celtic players ahead of him in line for that award. In terms of minutes played, Powe was 11th man on that team. He was 10th in points scored, 7th in rebounding, 13th in assists, and 14th in assist/turnover ratio. The last two stats give an indication of what kind of team player he was. Regardless, he was a member of the team, did make a good contribution, but he sat way down the bench, and did not “get the Celtics a championship.” I admire his drive to fight through injury and make this good contribution, and I am very pleased that he did get a championship ring, in winning the ultimate title in a player’s career.
In 2003, the Bears were 22-9, and averaged 74 points per game. In 2004, Powe, Kately and Ubaka arrived. The Bears played a lot of one-on-one, and the Bears were 13-15, and averaged 67 points per game.
Originally Posted by gobears
It is not the number of shots the leading scorer takes, it is the number of good shots he takes. If he is not open, then pass it off, and start the play again.
Bringing up Mark McNamara makes my point. If Powe passed up three forced shots he took when he was double teamed, which either missed or were blocked, and instead passes to a teammate, maybe two of them go to assists for buckets. Cal gets four more points and Powe’s shooting percentage goes up to 6/9 and 75%, in the McNamara range.
I would not be so sure that Powe and McNamara were the only two Bears in history to average a double double, as rebounding was not a stat that was kept and archived until maybe the last 15 years, that I know of. I can almost guarantee you that Bob McKeen, Darrall Imhoff, and Bob Presly had double double years. McKeen and Imhoff were the dominant centers on the West Coast in their eras, and Presly was a scorer and a leaper. Not uncommon for him to get 15-20 rebounds or more. Others who might have done it are Bill McClintock, Ansley Truit, and maybe even Carl Bird. McClintock had plenty of games with over 10 rebounds. There were no other rebounders on Bird’s teams that I remember. You can ask him when you see him at a Cal game next year. Go Bears!
I remember center Jay Young being a good defender and rebounder. Guards Rickie Hawthorne and Connie White were big for their day and scored plenty inside, but I don't remember how well they rebounded. Small forward John Terry was super quick and a superb defender - I expect he also rebounded well for his position.
Originally Posted by SFCityBear
Thanks very much for the correction and additional information about some good Cal players.
Originally Posted by stu