At least Joel Brown has been making free throws.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

At least Joel Brown has been making free throws.

---

He is definitely most improved on the team.

is it my imagination or does every stanford bad pass, stumbling, ugly drive result in something good?

James Hahn stumbling in the PGA tourney; the Super Bowl; and now this game. Today has been wholly disrespectful to my fandom.

Bradley has the worst individual plus/minus in this game. Our offense did seem to have better movement in games without him. Not his fault, but other players may tend to think that the ball should go to him and not to them.

The only phrase that has comforted me for the last 5 seasons;

Cal covers!



*Furd was up 19. They really f'd their loyal fans that wagered on them.

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

We fire Fox yet? This ain't gonna improve guys. It's what we knew deep down it would be.

touchdownbears43 said:

---

We fire Fox yet? This ain't gonna improve guys. It's what we knew deep down it would be.

---

Here's what that (firing Fox) is going to take:

We fired the last guy after two years and are still paying his buyout. On top of that, we would need to pay Fox what he has coming. On top of that, if we're going to hire a better coach it's likely to cost more.

So are you ready to dig really deep?

I hope there's more you have to give after that, because we're having a hard time getting good coaches (and recruits) to come here because we're one of the few teams left in conferences like ours that don't have a dedicated practice facility. All that's gonna be some big bucks, but don't worry, you can probably get some other donors to shoulder some of the load.

Sorry, but there's more on top of that: When we hired Fox, our AD did it by hiring a search firm to do the work for him and chose the guy that the firm had been preparing for the interview for a year (since he was out of work). So, on top of the millions, you're also gonna have to fix the broken system as well.

If you get all this done and we're winning again, my hat's off to you! Really, I would name a school in San Francisco after you. They're gonna need a whole lotta new names. I don't have any say in that and I don't even live there, but still...

Go Bears!

When Haase was at cal, he led the league in floor burns. Now, he leads the league in eating pizzas.

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

Sigh

NathanAllen said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

I'm curious to read about this assessment if you don't mind going into some specifics or elaborate a bit. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, just want to see what you see in both of the coaches.

---

no deep analysis

haase teams have been underperforming for years with superior talent

the teams played each other 3 days ago, so both coaches had time to game plan

no match in the first game

the second game was better

no deep analysis ... reflects more what I think about haase as a game coach more than anything

I tip my hat to furd. They're good. Nice offensive balance and versatility, and they run pick-and-roll well. On defense, they trap well. Cal struggled to deal with both of those (pick-and-roll and trapping).

We got a glimpse of the optimum lineup: Brown, Celestine, Bradley, Antecevich, and Kelly. Fox stuck with that lineup intact for several minutes, including through a timeout. It was obviously one small sample, but that lineup immediately went on a 7-0 run, which would have been 9-0 had Kelly not missed that dunk. In the end, the score for that lineup was 9-4 (should have been 11-4) and started the extended H2 run.

Hyder played better tonight. So did Brown. Very nice to see the free throws going down (6-7?).

Kelly's and Thorpe's early misses kept the Bears from gaining early momentum, but wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome. This furd team (even without a couple key players) is better than Cal is this season. Tonight's game was not as close as the score suggests.

About Kelly, I have to note that I recently questioned whether Kelly is adept at going to his left hand around the basket. At that time I noticed a couple consecutive games where he almost exclusively used his right around the basket. Someone on the board responded with confidence that Kelly is able to use his LH effectively and indeed I've noticed in the last couple games that Kelly has demonstrated effectiveness with his LH around tha basket. So that's good to see. Shout out to whoever that was who corrected me on that.

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

Sigh

---

Hey, 76-70... we were competitive!

Kidding, obviously. Lately, I'm seeing a team that is getting killed by other teams' length. Some teams can compensate for that in other areas, but we cannot, as we have no other areas in which we excel.

" .....would name a school in San Francisco after you. "

Not a single BI poster would pass the requirements. All have skeletons in the closet. Some are subject to restraining orders regarding where they can live..or worse....but bearister High School does have a ring to it.

NathanAllen said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

Sigh

---

Hey, 76-70... we were competitive!

Kidding, obviously. Lately, I'm seeing a team that is getting killed by other teams' length. Some teams can compensate for that in other areas, but we cannot, as we have no other areas in which we excel.

---

Fox spoke a bit about this in the post-game presser. Essentially said until the roster gets bigger, there's not much they can do and they need to be almost perfect in effort and execution to compete. Also mentioned that the team was better on defense last year with the same guys, so it doesn't necessarily take more size on the roster.

He mentioned this a bit, but Cal doesn't have someone that can matchup with the stretch-forwards many other Pac-12 teams have. Fox did say Kelly, Thorpe, and Thiemann don't have the speed to match players like Da Silva and Anticevich and Kuany don't have the size to match guys like Da Silva.

---

So the tallest player coming in is 6"7". How is that going to help?

NathanAllen said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

Sigh

---

Hey, 76-70... we were competitive!

Kidding, obviously. Lately, I'm seeing a team that is getting killed by other teams' length. Some teams can compensate for that in other areas, but we cannot, as we have no other areas in which we excel.

---

Fox spoke a bit about this in the post-game presser. Essentially said until the roster gets bigger, there's not much they can do and they need to be almost perfect in effort and execution to compete. Also mentioned that the team was better on defense last year with the same guys, so it doesn't necessarily take more size on the roster.

He mentioned this a bit, but Cal doesn't have someone that can matchup with the stretch-forwards many other Pac-12 teams have. Fox did say Kelly, Thorpe, and Thiemann don't have the speed to match players like Da Silva and Anticevich and Kuany don't have the size to match guys like Da Silva.

---

So the tallest player coming in is 6"7". How is that going to help?

---

Yeah, I mean, he definitely walked it back a bit after saying that, pointing out they were better at defending last year and then talking less about size and more about matchups.

Versatile, mobile, and quick 6-9, 6-10 guys are hard to come by. Da Silva is the leading scorer in the league for a reason. He's not just a matchup problem for Cal.

But, Cal held him to averaging about eight points per game in the three games the teams played against each other last year. For whatever reason, the same guys weren't able to contain him this year like last year.

---

Silva is just better this year compared to last

Thiemann and DJ can not defend a big that faces up 5-10 feet from the basket and shoot or drive from there

Just not quick enough

I remember in year's past when Cal had a decent Big, or two, that teams that had mittens full of 6'6-6'7 guys that could ball and moved like whirling Dervishes, they would cause us much pain and foul trouble.

bearister said:

---

I remember in year's past when Cal had a decent Big, or two, that teams that had mittens full of 6'6-6'7 guys that could ball and moved like whirling Dervishes, they would cause us much pain and foul trouble.

---

Next season we'll have several of those guys. Time will tell if they can ball...

HoopDreams said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

I'm curious to read about this assessment if you don't mind going into some specifics or elaborate a bit. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, just want to see what you see in both of the coaches.

---

no deep analysis

haase teams have been underperforming for years with superior talent

the teams played each other 3 days ago, so both coaches had time to game plan

no match in the first game

the second game was better

no deep analysis ... reflects more what I think about haase as a game coach more than anything

---

so the coach that lost both games is the better coach?

First of all, a college basketball coach does everything. He acquires the talent. He develops the talent. He sets the lineups. He game plans. He is responsible for in game strategy. Being a better coach means being better at everything a coach does. It is not JUST game planning.

But let's say it is just game planning. How was the second game better? We got clobbered in both games.

The first half of each game was pretty similar. Cal stayed in the game through most of the half, then Stanford went on a run at the end of the half to push the lead to double digits.

In the second half of the first game, Cal actually came out and made the game close for a while. We were still in it for a good portion of the half. Cal closed it down to I think 4 points. Stanford basically slowly added and added to the lead until they built a double digit lead and maintained that to the end.

In the second half of the second game, Cal was never competitive. We spent almost 20 minutes of game time losing by double digits. we were losing by 18, I think, with under 4 to play.

Are you seriously considering a run in garbage time that never got us within striking distance making that better?

I swear sometimes this board is like this:

Teacher puts up on the board:

Solve:

2 + 2 =

And a lot of equations get written on the board with sines and cosines, derivatives, integrals, quadratics, and then the answer comes out 5,239,602. And when someone says "uh. the answer is 4" they get accused of being too simplistic.

I'm going to say that the coach that handily beat the other coach twice in one week had the better week. (not that 2 games makes one the better coach, but this week, he was)

drizzlybear said:

---

We got a glimpse of the optimum lineup: Brown, Celestine, Bradley, Antecevich, and Kelly. Fox stuck with that lineup intact for several minutes, including through a timeout. It was obviously one small sample, but that lineup immediately went on a 7-0 run, which would have been 9-0 had Kelly not missed that dunk. In the end, the score for that lineup was 9-4 (should have been 11-4) and started the extended H2 run.

.

---

So, seems like everyone but Fox agrees this is the best lineup. He almost never uses it. When he does it leads to the best results. What does that tell you.

drizzlybear said:

---

Hyder played better tonight. So did Brown. Very nice to see the free throws going down (6-7?).

---

People are far too reactive to every player performance in every game. Grant had a great week and it is like he arrived. Then he has a poor week and everyone is disappointed. Brown has a bad game and we need to find a new point guard. Then he has a good game.

Fact is that until guys are consistently good starters, their games are going to be up and down. And, much of it has to do with matchups. Brown will develop and will be our solid if unspectacular PG next year. If Grant comes back, I'd expect him to be what he is, on average a solid player who has some really good days and really bad days and mostly has really normal days.

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

I'm curious to read about this assessment if you don't mind going into some specifics or elaborate a bit. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, just want to see what you see in both of the coaches.

---

no deep analysis

haase teams have been underperforming for years with superior talent

the teams played each other 3 days ago, so both coaches had time to game plan

no match in the first game

the second game was better

no deep analysis ... reflects more what I think about haase as a game coach more than anything

---

so the coach that lost both games is the better coach?

First of all, a college basketball coach does everything. He acquires the talent. He develops the talent. He sets the lineups. He game plans. He is responsible for in game strategy. Being a better coach means being better at everything a coach does. It is not JUST game planning.

But let's say it is just game planning. How was the second game better? We got clobbered in both games.

The first half of each game was pretty similar. Cal stayed in the game through most of the half, then Stanford went on a run at the end of the half to push the lead to double digits.

In the second half of the first game, Cal actually came out and made the game close for a while. We were still in it for a good portion of the half. Cal closed it down to I think 4 points. Stanford basically slowly added and added to the lead until they built a double digit lead and maintained that to the end.

In the second half of the second game, Cal was never competitive. We spent almost 20 minutes of game time losing by double digits. we were losing by 18, I think, with under 4 to play.

Are you seriously considering a run in garbage time that never got us within striking distance making that better?

I swear sometimes this board is like this:

Teacher puts up on the board:

Solve:

2 + 2 =

And a lot of equations get written on the board with sines and cosines, derivatives, integrals, quadratics, and then the answer comes out 5,239,602. And when someone says "uh. the answer is 4" they get accused of being too simplistic.

I'm going to say that the coach that handily beat the other coach twice in one week had the better week. (not that 2 games makes one the better coach, but this week, he was)

---

To clarify, I meant to say Fox is the better GAME coach.
(sorry for the confusion...I thought I said that in my original post)

the teams 3 days ago were the same as yesterday (actually Stanford added one of their best players for the second game)

recruiting, developing, and the things you listed did not change in 3 days

therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game

HoopDreams said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

I'm curious to read about this assessment if you don't mind going into some specifics or elaborate a bit. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, just want to see what you see in both of the coaches.

---

no deep analysis

haase teams have been underperforming for years with superior talent

the teams played each other 3 days ago, so both coaches had time to game plan

no match in the first game

the second game was better

no deep analysis ... reflects more what I think about haase as a game coach more than anything

---

so the coach that lost both games is the better coach?

First of all, a college basketball coach does everything. He acquires the talent. He develops the talent. He sets the lineups. He game plans. He is responsible for in game strategy. Being a better coach means being better at everything a coach does. It is not JUST game planning.

But let's say it is just game planning. How was the second game better? We got clobbered in both games.

The first half of each game was pretty similar. Cal stayed in the game through most of the half, then Stanford went on a run at the end of the half to push the lead to double digits.

In the second half of the first game, Cal actually came out and made the game close for a while. We were still in it for a good portion of the half. Cal closed it down to I think 4 points. Stanford basically slowly added and added to the lead until they built a double digit lead and maintained that to the end.

In the second half of the second game, Cal was never competitive. We spent almost 20 minutes of game time losing by double digits. we were losing by 18, I think, with under 4 to play.

Are you seriously considering a run in garbage time that never got us within striking distance making that better?

I swear sometimes this board is like this:

Teacher puts up on the board:

Solve:

2 + 2 =

And a lot of equations get written on the board with sines and cosines, derivatives, integrals, quadratics, and then the answer comes out 5,239,602. And when someone says "uh. the answer is 4" they get accused of being too simplistic.

I'm going to say that the coach that handily beat the other coach twice in one week had the better week. (not that 2 games makes one the better coach, but this week, he was)

---

To clarify, I meant to say Fox is the better GAME coach.
(sorry for the confusion...I thought I said that in my original post)

the teams 3 days ago were the same as yesterday (actually Stanford added one of their best players for the second game)

recruiting, developing, and the things you listed did not change in 3 days

therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game

---

And the second game was better how?

"We got clobbered in both games."

Yes, but those of us Pollyanna enough to wager on the Bears hit a payday on Game 2. If players were allowed to gamble, the Furd players would have been more protective of that 19 point lead. Remember, Sun Devil Headache Smith had to hit a half court shot against the J Kidd led Bears to save his legs from being broken (he wasn't always shaving).

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

I'm curious to read about this assessment if you don't mind going into some specifics or elaborate a bit. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, just want to see what you see in both of the coaches.

---

no deep analysis

haase teams have been underperforming for years with superior talent

the teams played each other 3 days ago, so both coaches had time to game plan

no match in the first game

the second game was better

no deep analysis ... reflects more what I think about haase as a game coach more than anything

---

so the coach that lost both games is the better coach?

First of all, a college basketball coach does everything. He acquires the talent. He develops the talent. He sets the lineups. He game plans. He is responsible for in game strategy. Being a better coach means being better at everything a coach does. It is not JUST game planning.

But let's say it is just game planning. How was the second game better? We got clobbered in both games.

The first half of each game was pretty similar. Cal stayed in the game through most of the half, then Stanford went on a run at the end of the half to push the lead to double digits.

In the second half of the first game, Cal actually came out and made the game close for a while. We were still in it for a good portion of the half. Cal closed it down to I think 4 points. Stanford basically slowly added and added to the lead until they built a double digit lead and maintained that to the end.

In the second half of the second game, Cal was never competitive. We spent almost 20 minutes of game time losing by double digits. we were losing by 18, I think, with under 4 to play.

Are you seriously considering a run in garbage time that never got us within striking distance making that better?

I swear sometimes this board is like this:

Teacher puts up on the board:

Solve:

2 + 2 =

And a lot of equations get written on the board with sines and cosines, derivatives, integrals, quadratics, and then the answer comes out 5,239,602. And when someone says "uh. the answer is 4" they get accused of being too simplistic.

I'm going to say that the coach that handily beat the other coach twice in one week had the better week. (not that 2 games makes one the better coach, but this week, he was)

---

To clarify, I meant to say Fox is the better GAME coach.
(sorry for the confusion...I thought I said that in my original post)

the teams 3 days ago were the same as yesterday (actually Stanford added one of their best players for the second game)

recruiting, developing, and the things you listed did not change in 3 days

therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game

---

And the second game was better how?

---

Here's how: Cal had a higher eFG% (not by much, but still), turned it over less, grabbed more offensive rebounds, got to the foul line more, and had an overall better offensive rating by almost 20 points. In the first game it was the Bradley/Kelly show. In the second, neither had as efficient games but other members of the team stepped up, making it a well-rounded approach. Cal needs more games like the second one from Brown/Betley/Hyder.

Was it a loss? Yes. Did Cal still have any answers for da Silva? No. Did the defense give up way too high of a percentage of field goals? Yes. Did Stanford get to the line too much? Yes. Was the final score closer than the majority of the game reflected? Yes.

But most of the key stats say Cal played a much better game the second game. It obviously wasn't enough for a win. But when your team is 2-12 in conference, the approach I prefer to take is find the positive aspects of individual players and games and look at how that might be built into wins.

---

I don't disagree with anything you said here. But the question wasn't whether Cal played better or played a more well rounded game. The question was who was the better coach and I understand that he meant game day. So it isn't a Cal question. It is a Cal in relation to Stanford question. While all the things you say are true, Stanford played a better game as well and the actual result was the same.

He made a statement that the game showed Fox was the better coach this week. You asked him how. I didn't think he really answered that. I was just following up on your question. When I said "and the second game was better how?" it was in context of his statement "therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game".

I appreciate you finding positives, but if Fox developed a better game plan in 3 days and coached the team on that court, and the result was basically the same, than somewhere along the way, Haase did the same thing and matched those positives.

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

I'm curious to read about this assessment if you don't mind going into some specifics or elaborate a bit. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, just want to see what you see in both of the coaches.

---

no deep analysis

haase teams have been underperforming for years with superior talent

the teams played each other 3 days ago, so both coaches had time to game plan

no match in the first game

the second game was better

no deep analysis ... reflects more what I think about haase as a game coach more than anything

---

so the coach that lost both games is the better coach?

First of all, a college basketball coach does everything. He acquires the talent. He develops the talent. He sets the lineups. He game plans. He is responsible for in game strategy. Being a better coach means being better at everything a coach does. It is not JUST game planning.

But let's say it is just game planning. How was the second game better? We got clobbered in both games.

The first half of each game was pretty similar. Cal stayed in the game through most of the half, then Stanford went on a run at the end of the half to push the lead to double digits.

In the second half of the first game, Cal actually came out and made the game close for a while. We were still in it for a good portion of the half. Cal closed it down to I think 4 points. Stanford basically slowly added and added to the lead until they built a double digit lead and maintained that to the end.

In the second half of the second game, Cal was never competitive. We spent almost 20 minutes of game time losing by double digits. we were losing by 18, I think, with under 4 to play.

Are you seriously considering a run in garbage time that never got us within striking distance making that better?

I swear sometimes this board is like this:

Teacher puts up on the board:

Solve:

2 + 2 =

And a lot of equations get written on the board with sines and cosines, derivatives, integrals, quadratics, and then the answer comes out 5,239,602. And when someone says "uh. the answer is 4" they get accused of being too simplistic.

I'm going to say that the coach that handily beat the other coach twice in one week had the better week. (not that 2 games makes one the better coach, but this week, he was)

---

To clarify, I meant to say Fox is the better GAME coach.
(sorry for the confusion...I thought I said that in my original post)

the teams 3 days ago were the same as yesterday (actually Stanford added one of their best players for the second game)

recruiting, developing, and the things you listed did not change in 3 days

therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game

---

And the second game was better how?

---

Here's how: Cal had a higher eFG% (not by much, but still), turned it over less, grabbed more offensive rebounds, got to the foul line more, and had an overall better offensive rating by almost 20 points. In the first game it was the Bradley/Kelly show. In the second, neither had as efficient games but other members of the team stepped up, making it a well-rounded approach. Cal needs more games like the second one from Brown/Betley/Hyder.

Was it a loss? Yes. Did Cal still have any answers for da Silva? No. Did the defense give up way too high of a percentage of field goals? Yes. Did Stanford get to the line too much? Yes. Was the final score closer than the majority of the game reflected? Yes.

But most of the key stats say Cal played a much better game the second game. It obviously wasn't enough for a win. But when your team is 2-12 in conference, the approach I prefer to take is find the positive aspects of individual players and games and look at how that might be built into wins.

---

I don't disagree with anything you said here. But the question wasn't whether Cal played better or played a more well rounded game. The question was who was the better coach and I understand that he meant game day. So it isn't a Cal question. It is a Cal in relation to Stanford question. While all the things you say are true, Stanford played a better game as well and the actual result was the same.

He made a statement that the game showed Fox was the better coach this week. You asked him how. I didn't think he really answered that. I was just following up on your question. When I said "and the second game was better how?" it was in context of his statement "therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game".

I appreciate you finding positives, but if Fox developed a better game plan in 3 days and coached the team on that court, and the result was basically the same, than somewhere along the way, Haase did the same thing and matched those positives.

---

Gotchya. I interpreted your question as literally asking how the second game was better so was trying to offer some objective data on how it was just that.

I did like how Fox changed up the starting lineup from the first game to the second game. During the first game it seemed like having Kelly and Thiemann on the floor at the same time (somewhat) slowed down Stanford's paint scoring. I was hoping to see Cal go all-out on stopping da Silva in the second game, but he ended up basically having the same production as the first game.

HoopDreams has insightful posts about the team so I wanted to learn more about the thought Fox was a better coach. I think, like you, I was also surprised by that thought considering Stanford really handled Cal both games. And I genuinely don't really have a strong opinion on it. I'm not sure how much it matters.

Fox definitely has more experience. And Stanford really hasn't been that good with Hasse. I agree with what many have voiced here and that he's done less with more talent at Stanford. But I also agree with your point that a major part of coaching is bringing in talent. In head-to-head matchups over the past two seasons, Hasse now leads 3-2.

I was very impressed with how Fox had his team ready to go against Stanford in the Pac-12 tournament last year. Stanford was literally playing for an NCAA tournament spot and Cal was basically playing for nothing but Cal dominated. That was impressive. But this year I was less impressed, especially with the first game. Playing at home and Stanford being down three key players, I thought Cal would win. And they lost in a pretty non-competitive way. The second game was better in my eyes, but the bar was pretty low from the first game.

---

I thought game 2 was less competitive. I have been arguing with OTB that the team has improved and is more competitive this year based on the simple eye test that the team is now watchable, but that wasn't so yesterday. To the point that I turned it off with 5 minutes to go, which is something I almost never do. Apparently, they went on a run during that stretch which helped their advanced stats, but I'd like to see those stats for when the game actually mattered.

And to Hoops argument that Fox made the better adjustments in game 2: it's always easier for the team that is behind (or in this case lost the last game) to make adjustments. Why would a team that just throttled you make many changes?

Civil Bear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

i said we will see who the better coach is since they just played each other

Fox > Haase

---

I'm curious to read about this assessment if you don't mind going into some specifics or elaborate a bit. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, just want to see what you see in both of the coaches.

---

no deep analysis

haase teams have been underperforming for years with superior talent

the teams played each other 3 days ago, so both coaches had time to game plan

no match in the first game

the second game was better

no deep analysis ... reflects more what I think about haase as a game coach more than anything

---

so the coach that lost both games is the better coach?

First of all, a college basketball coach does everything. He acquires the talent. He develops the talent. He sets the lineups. He game plans. He is responsible for in game strategy. Being a better coach means being better at everything a coach does. It is not JUST game planning.

But let's say it is just game planning. How was the second game better? We got clobbered in both games.

The first half of each game was pretty similar. Cal stayed in the game through most of the half, then Stanford went on a run at the end of the half to push the lead to double digits.

In the second half of the first game, Cal actually came out and made the game close for a while. We were still in it for a good portion of the half. Cal closed it down to I think 4 points. Stanford basically slowly added and added to the lead until they built a double digit lead and maintained that to the end.

In the second half of the second game, Cal was never competitive. We spent almost 20 minutes of game time losing by double digits. we were losing by 18, I think, with under 4 to play.

Are you seriously considering a run in garbage time that never got us within striking distance making that better?

I swear sometimes this board is like this:

Teacher puts up on the board:

Solve:

2 + 2 =

And a lot of equations get written on the board with sines and cosines, derivatives, integrals, quadratics, and then the answer comes out 5,239,602. And when someone says "uh. the answer is 4" they get accused of being too simplistic.

I'm going to say that the coach that handily beat the other coach twice in one week had the better week. (not that 2 games makes one the better coach, but this week, he was)

---

To clarify, I meant to say Fox is the better GAME coach.
(sorry for the confusion...I thought I said that in my original post)

the teams 3 days ago were the same as yesterday (actually Stanford added one of their best players for the second game)

recruiting, developing, and the things you listed did not change in 3 days

therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game

---

And the second game was better how?

---

Here's how: Cal had a higher eFG% (not by much, but still), turned it over less, grabbed more offensive rebounds, got to the foul line more, and had an overall better offensive rating by almost 20 points. In the first game it was the Bradley/Kelly show. In the second, neither had as efficient games but other members of the team stepped up, making it a well-rounded approach. Cal needs more games like the second one from Brown/Betley/Hyder.

Was it a loss? Yes. Did Cal still have any answers for da Silva? No. Did the defense give up way too high of a percentage of field goals? Yes. Did Stanford get to the line too much? Yes. Was the final score closer than the majority of the game reflected? Yes.

But most of the key stats say Cal played a much better game the second game. It obviously wasn't enough for a win. But when your team is 2-12 in conference, the approach I prefer to take is find the positive aspects of individual players and games and look at how that might be built into wins.

---

I don't disagree with anything you said here. But the question wasn't whether Cal played better or played a more well rounded game. The question was who was the better coach and I understand that he meant game day. So it isn't a Cal question. It is a Cal in relation to Stanford question. While all the things you say are true, Stanford played a better game as well and the actual result was the same.

He made a statement that the game showed Fox was the better coach this week. You asked him how. I didn't think he really answered that. I was just following up on your question. When I said "and the second game was better how?" it was in context of his statement "therefore what mattered is who can develop a better game plan in 3 days, and coach the team on the court for that second game".

I appreciate you finding positives, but if Fox developed a better game plan in 3 days and coached the team on that court, and the result was basically the same, than somewhere along the way, Haase did the same thing and matched those positives.

---

Gotchya. I interpreted your question as literally asking how the second game was better so was trying to offer some objective data on how it was just that.

I did like how Fox changed up the starting lineup from the first game to the second game. During the first game it seemed like having Kelly and Thiemann on the floor at the same time (somewhat) slowed down Stanford's paint scoring. I was hoping to see Cal go all-out on stopping da Silva in the second game, but he ended up basically having the same production as the first game.

HoopDreams has insightful posts about the team so I wanted to learn more about the thought Fox was a better coach. I think, like you, I was also surprised by that thought considering Stanford really handled Cal both games. And I genuinely don't really have a strong opinion on it. I'm not sure how much it matters.

Fox definitely has more experience. And Stanford really hasn't been that good with Hasse. I agree with what many have voiced here and that he's done less with more talent at Stanford. But I also agree with your point that a major part of coaching is bringing in talent. In head-to-head matchups over the past two seasons, Hasse now leads 3-2.

I was very impressed with how Fox had his team ready to go against Stanford in the Pac-12 tournament last year. Stanford was literally playing for an NCAA tournament spot and Cal was basically playing for nothing but Cal dominated. That was impressive. But this year I was less impressed, especially with the first game. Playing at home and Stanford being down three key players, I thought Cal would win. And they lost in a pretty non-competitive way. The second game was better in my eyes, but the bar was pretty low from the first game.

---

I thought game 2 was less competitive. I have been arguing with OTB that the team has improved and is more competitive this year based on the simple eye test that the team is now watchable, but that wasn't so yesterday. To the point that I turned it off with 5 minutes to go, which is something I almost never do. Apparently, they went on a run during that stretch which helped their advanced stats, but I'd like to see those stats for when the game actually mattered.

And to Hoops argument that Fox made the better adjustments in game 2: it's always easier for the team that is behind (or in this case lost the last game) to make adjustments. Why would a team that just throttled you make many changes?

---

Great point. For the record, I am not a fan of Haase or Fox but I am a big fan of the team Fox coaches.

Stanford has lost to inferior teams this year that played zone and/or pressed their guards. They are one of the worst 3 pt shooting teams in the country ranking 334 in 3pt shots made. Bobby Hurley beat them with a press but he has Remy Martin. Other teams have stymied them with a zone daring their guards to shoot....

I think it's great that a cryptic post I made on my phone turned into an interesting debate (despite the fact I confused my point from the get go). Still better then endless having the same discussions over and over...

in terms of which game was better, you could look at it a million ways. I didn't go into deep analytics or study the time and score as it unfolded

my simple view is every year I look at stanford and think on paper that they will have a successful year, and every year they underperform, and at best are on the bubble.

Same this year. They have 1 great win in OOC that will get them in, but again they have underperformed expectations considering they have the conference POY and 2nd highest freshmen recruit. They have length, skill and shooting across their lineup, plus experience and depth.

Who couldn't win with that lineup?

Well my answer is Haase. He recruits extremely well (mostly because it's stanford) but under performs on game planning and in game coaching

How else do you explain his under performing every year?