sluggo said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

sluggo said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

sluggo said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season, I think you've got to tack on a year or two to his contract.

If it's an NIT, it gets a bit more complex.

No NIT, you've got to start seriously considering a replacement.

Because while I don't want to take the negative/fatalist approach that some on this thread have taken and I can't predict the future, the way the roster is set up now, unless we get some surprises from current or future players, the year after next will be a step back. Bradley/Kelly/Anticevich will be tough to replace.

---

I think that's a fair assessment. I think an NCAA Tourney next season would even satisfy some of the wordier and more argumentative posters. I also think there are creative ways to negotiate a contract/extension so that it supports a long term view for recruiting while also having enough exit strategies for both sides. That way - paying off two coaches ago (Jones), does not need to be part of the decision tree for hiring a new coach. That topic peaks its head now and then, but is a red herring IMHO.

---

Absolutely.

This will be another unpopular take, (and I know Knowlton is unpopular among many vocal posters), but at the time of hiring Fox, Cal wasn't exactly in a very good place to negotiate a contract for itself. (I think that's pretty evident considering Cal hired a coach that had been out of work for a year after being let go from another Power Conference school.) It had to be a favorable contract for a coach to attract someone.

---

Hilarious. Fox would have taken much less unless he was enjoying being unemployed, and he would have had even less value if he sat out another year. There is only one Cal for hiring bad coaches, where else was he going to go?

---

I mean, I'm guessing if he really wanted to get back into coaching, he could've gone the mid-major route. Like Steve Alford going to Nevada after getting canned at UCLA. I mean, Cal certainly isn't the only power conference program to hire coaches fired from other power conference programs. St. John's has done it twice, hiring Steve Lavin and Mike Anderson. Auburn and Bruce Pearl. Tennessee and Rick Barnes. Kansas State and Bruce Weber. Obviously, Lavin, Anderson, Pearl, Barnes, and Weber have all had much more success than Fox, but still, they were all fired. Mississippi State has had Ben Howland for six seasons now and only one NCAA Tournament appearance (and no wins). It's not uncommon.

---

Mid-major would have been for one third of what Cal gave him. That is why I am confident Cal could have had him for much less. It is also why I think Cal can get a better coach without breaking the bank.

---

This mindset is kind-of the issue, in my opinion. Regardless if you think Fox is worth it or not, Cal's perception on the market is likely already one that doesn't pay coaches at market rate. Because it doesn't, despite being in an incredibly expensive area of the country. If it starts low-balling coaches, that's only going to get worse.

Cal already pays less than all but one one power conference school (Wazzu pays Kyle Smith $1.4 million). Mid-majors like Cincinnati and VCU pay their coaches as much as Cal is paying Fox. Dayton and Iona are paying almost as much. Cal already pays like top-end mid-majors.

And it's my opinion Cal will continue to have the problems it does in hiring coaches until it's willing to pay up. Because even if they are able to get an up-and-comer or a proven winner, what's to say a school willing to pay more isn't going to swoop in and take that coach (Missouri and Martin)?

---

If Cal pays triple the money of a mid-major head coach or top assistant at a top program, that person will either come to Cal or take an even better offer. Once they are here, after they show they are good, they can be bumped up. That is a hell of a lot better than hiring someone who is known not to be good and then not being able to fire them because they are overpaid. Cal's strategy is the worst of all worlds.

---

sluggo said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

sluggo said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

sluggo said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season, I think you've got to tack on a year or two to his contract.

If it's an NIT, it gets a bit more complex.

No NIT, you've got to start seriously considering a replacement.

Because while I don't want to take the negative/fatalist approach that some on this thread have taken and I can't predict the future, the way the roster is set up now, unless we get some surprises from current or future players, the year after next will be a step back. Bradley/Kelly/Anticevich will be tough to replace.

---

I think that's a fair assessment. I think an NCAA Tourney next season would even satisfy some of the wordier and more argumentative posters. I also think there are creative ways to negotiate a contract/extension so that it supports a long term view for recruiting while also having enough exit strategies for both sides. That way - paying off two coaches ago (Jones), does not need to be part of the decision tree for hiring a new coach. That topic peaks its head now and then, but is a red herring IMHO.

---

Absolutely.

This will be another unpopular take, (and I know Knowlton is unpopular among many vocal posters), but at the time of hiring Fox, Cal wasn't exactly in a very good place to negotiate a contract for itself. (I think that's pretty evident considering Cal hired a coach that had been out of work for a year after being let go from another Power Conference school.) It had to be a favorable contract for a coach to attract someone.

---

Hilarious. Fox would have taken much less unless he was enjoying being unemployed, and he would have had even less value if he sat out another year. There is only one Cal for hiring bad coaches, where else was he going to go?

---

I mean, I'm guessing if he really wanted to get back into coaching, he could've gone the mid-major route. Like Steve Alford going to Nevada after getting canned at UCLA. I mean, Cal certainly isn't the only power conference program to hire coaches fired from other power conference programs. St. John's has done it twice, hiring Steve Lavin and Mike Anderson. Auburn and Bruce Pearl. Tennessee and Rick Barnes. Kansas State and Bruce Weber. Obviously, Lavin, Anderson, Pearl, Barnes, and Weber have all had much more success than Fox, but still, they were all fired. Mississippi State has had Ben Howland for six seasons now and only one NCAA Tournament appearance (and no wins). It's not uncommon.

---

Mid-major would have been for one third of what Cal gave him. That is why I am confident Cal could have had him for much less. It is also why I think Cal can get a better coach without breaking the bank.

---

This mindset is kind-of the issue, in my opinion. Regardless if you think Fox is worth it or not, Cal's perception on the market is likely already one that doesn't pay coaches at market rate. Because it doesn't, despite being in an incredibly expensive area of the country. If it starts low-balling coaches, that's only going to get worse.

Cal already pays less than all but one one power conference school (Wazzu pays Kyle Smith $1.4 million). Mid-majors like Cincinnati and VCU pay their coaches as much as Cal is paying Fox. Dayton and Iona are paying almost as much. Cal already pays like top-end mid-majors.

And it's my opinion Cal will continue to have the problems it does in hiring coaches until it's willing to pay up. Because even if they are able to get an up-and-comer or a proven winner, what's to say a school willing to pay more isn't going to swoop in and take that coach (Missouri and Martin)?

---

Here is a familiar name: Shantay Legans. Earned 150k at EWU in 2018 according to google. Won the Big Sky conference last year. In first place this year. Maybe they have bumped him, but Cal could have him for Fox money. (Actually for less.) Who would you rather have? I can't say I have seen EWU play, but Legans had great fundamentals when he was at Cal, which is a good sign for his coaching. He fits the profile of who should be the next guy.

---

NathanAllen said:

---

stu said:

---

Quote:

---

And it's my opinion Cal will continue to have the problems it does in hiring coaches until it's willing to pay up. Because even if they are able to get an up-and-comer or a proven winner, what's to say a school willing to pay more isn't going to swoop in and take that coach (Missouri and Martin)?

---

Missouri can have Martin.

We could always offer contracts with large incentives and small buyouts then provide a competitive salary when we extend the contract.

---

Again, this doesn't change the perception. Incentives are usually things like getting 20 wins, or an NCAA appearance, or a conference title, or hitting a certain team GPA, or graduation rates. Large incentives and small buyouts say to a potential coach:

"We're not gonna pay you much unless you do the improbable and turn our program which has finished last in the conference more times than it hasn't in the past five years into an NCAA tournament team. And, oh yeah, we're gonna also set a really small buyout so we can fire you as soon as you don't. But if you overcome the odds and do this, we'll bump you up to market rate. Maybe."

Can you imagine taking a job under those conditions? You can't complain about having a coach you don't want but then say you want to pay less for a better coach. I mean, you can, but it doesn't make much sense to how things play out in the real world. If you want the best talent, even if it's an unknown talent, you're eventually gonna have to pay competitively for it. Or at least offer perks/incentives that make sense to that talent and not just you.

---

BC Calfan said:

---

All this chatter has me daydreaming about a new coach! I love some of the suggestions mentioned. When it comes down to it, I want someone charismatic that players and administration like i.e. recruitment factor and someone with a decent track record of winning or an up-and-comer that has delivered results. Afilliation with Cal, West Coast Connections and ability to navigate UC bureaucracy is a bonus.

Veteran Coaches Goal: Land the next Rick Barnes, Lon Kruger, regardless of age
Jamie Dixon TCU
Lorenzo Romar Pepperdine
Kelvin Sampson Houston
Mike Brey Notre Dame
Brian Dutcher SDSU

Up and Coming Coaches Goal: Snag a younger guy with a lot of promise on an upward trajectory
Travis DeCuire Montana
Dennis Gates Cleveland St.
Shantay Legans EWU
Craig Smith Utah St.
Todd Golden USF

---

NathanAllen said:

---

calumnus said:

---

In Braun's last year we finished second to last. Monty took that team, minus Anderson, and finished 3rd in his first year and 1st in his second going to the NCAA tournament both years.

---

Yeah, but Fox isn't Monty, Braun isn't Wyking Jones, and Cal's program was vastly different at the end of Braun's tenure compared to Jones's.

First, Monty took Stanford to NCAA Tournament appearances all eight seasons he was the head coach there, and one at least one game in the Tournament each year. He also had a Final Four appearance, as well as an Elite Eight and Sweet 16 appearances. In 14 seasons, Fox has taken five teams to the NCAA Tournament (three at Nevada, two at UGA). He's won two NCAA Tournament games total. I think this was your point, but so far, Fox doesn't have the coaching achievements or chops that Monty had coming to Cal.

Yes, Braun's last team was second to last in the Pac-10, but that was an entirely different Pac-10 than what we've seen recently. It was the best league in the nation that year. It had five (half) teams make the NCAA Tournament and another three make it to the NIT (including Cal). Hell, UCLA had Kevin Love and Russell Westbrook on its team that year and made it to the Final Four. Stanford and Wazzu made it to the Sweet 16.

Jones's last year needed an unlikely three-game winning streak in the last three games to get its only three wins in the league, in a league that ranked seventh in the country in KenPom's conference standings. That Pac-12 league had three teams make it to the NCAA Tournament, all as a nine-seed or lower, none of which made it past the Sweet-16.

I think your point that Monty was a better coach than Fox is objectively true based on wins and losses. But there's a lot of context to also consider. Here's another way of putting it: Jones left teams that finished No. 244 and No. 241 in KenPom, Braun's last two teams finished No. 78 and No. 67. Fox was left a dumpster fire, and objectively one of the worst Power Conference programs in recent history.

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Did JK consult with Monty on the hire??Do we know one way or the other??

---

calumnus said:

---

Lol, I remember KJ once getting a steal and taking it in for the layup only to have Campanelli screaming at him and then send him to the bench because he wanted him to instead have pulled up and wait for the other 9 players so they could burn clock.

---

dimitrig said:

---

What happened to KJ? Did he ever amount to anything?

---

NathanAllen said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

God bless your stamina, in addition to your perspective. I lean more towards Townie's preference for the eye test with this team, especially this particular season. I continue to hope you're right about Hyder, though I continue to not share your optimism there. Stats like Ass/TO I think are not terribly insightful for this season due to such limited playing time for each of our PGs, plus the fact that the offense so frequently goes through (and often starts with) Bradley, especially late in close games. The resulting stats for our PGs end up being misleading, IMO, as they are subject to the whim of somewhat random things that can happen, including who they're playing with (or against) on the floor, during the small stretches of minutes they play in any particular game. I think that's especially true for Hyder.

In Hyder I do not see quality physical traits, I do not see quality perimeter shooting, I do not see effective/consistent playmaking for a team offense, nor do I see disruptive on-ball defense at the tip of the spear; and yet I do see a discouraging number of poor decisions and bad turnovers, and missed shots (notwithstanding his recent good game). I hope you're right and I'm wrong about him.

---

This entire thread is teetering on the edge of insightful/interesting and exhausting/annoying for me.

A couple points to your comment and SocalTownie's raving review of my stat dump. First, yeah, obviously most of us watch the games and have our own eyeball tests. That's good and fine. The issue with the eyeball test over time is a) our eyeballs tend to see what they want to see and b) our memories of what we saw/see can be influenced and biased. Year-to-year data provide and objective evaluation. Plus, most people are going to be more critical of an 8-19 season compared to a 14-18 season. I'm not saying to blindly follow the data without context. I am saying I honestly can't remember exactly what players looked like at the beginning of this season, much less last season and the data provide an objective lens.

To your point about assist/TO stats, that's fair. But that's why I'd point to the poss% and min% stats with ith. For example, Brown is averaging 26 minutes per game this year compared to 19 last year. His average assists have gone up to 3.1 from 1.8 while TOs have gone from 1.1 to 2.0. His poss% has increased, meaning a higher percentage of possessions end with him doing something while he's on the court compared to last season. And despite this, he still has improved in virtually all statistical categories. Has that led to better on-court outcomes for Cal? No. But he has objectively improved. This is where bias can come in. Despite being a lesser player last year, I think fans had a more favorable impression because a) he was in a backup role on a team that won more games compared to a lead role in a team that won fewer games, b) expectations have (fairly or unfairly) shifted since he's no longer a freshman, and c) people are going to be more critical when the team takes a noticeable step back.

For Hyder, I actually think his assist/TO rate is more important because of his oddly high poss%. His on-court poss% is 25%, meaning when he's on the court, a quarter of Cal's possessions are ending with him (again, why he is so much more visible to fans than, say, a Jalen Celestine, who has a poss% of 13.8%, lower on the team than everyone besides Thorpe and Bowser). No one has a higher poss% rate than Hyder except for Bradley, who has one of the highest poss% in the country. While Hyder is only averaging 1.8 assists per game, he has the highest assist% on the team, meaning, his rate of assists per possession is the highest on the team.

All of this comes with a bit of grain of salt as Cal is a better shooting team this year. So assists are more likely to occur compared to last year. But Hyder wasn't on the team last year, obviously, so it's less of a factor for him compared to looking at year-over-year stats for Brown.

Anyway, I get it. I watch the games. Both Brown and Hyder looked overwhelmed and frustrating at times. But unless you've got a top point-guard recruit, that's what's going to happen. I imagine the hope was Foreman would be able to take some of the pressure off Brown/Hyder this season, but that clearly didn't happen. The hope is all three take another step forward next year because Cal doesn't have any other PGs coming in next year unless there's some unforeseen roster turnover.

---

drizzlybear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season, I think you've got to tack on a year or two to his contract.

If it's an NIT, it gets a bit more complex.

No NIT, you've got to start seriously considering a replacement.

Because while I don't want to take the negative/fatalist approach that some on this thread have taken and I can't predict the future, the way the roster is set up now, unless we get some surprises from current or future players, the year after next will be a step back. Bradley/Kelly/Anticevich will be tough to replace.

---

I think the vocal negativity may be getting to you. If next year's team goes to ncaa we won't *have* to extend Fox, we'll *want* to extend him.

I also think the look of the incoming freshmen will be a factor, one way or the other, in the calculus of Fox's tenure.

As to BeachedBear's post, I am not in any of those camps. I am in a "jury is still out and next season will be very informative" camp.

---

NathanAllen said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

God bless your stamina, in addition to your perspective. I lean more towards Townie's preference for the eye test with this team, especially this particular season. I continue to hope you're right about Hyder, though I continue to not share your optimism there. Stats like Ass/TO I think are not terribly insightful for this season due to such limited playing time for each of our PGs, plus the fact that the offense so frequently goes through (and often starts with) Bradley, especially late in close games. The resulting stats for our PGs end up being misleading, IMO, as they are subject to the whim of somewhat random things that can happen, including who they're playing with (or against) on the floor, during the small stretches of minutes they play in any particular game. I think that's especially true for Hyder.

In Hyder I do not see quality physical traits, I do not see quality perimeter shooting, I do not see effective/consistent playmaking for a team offense, nor do I see disruptive on-ball defense at the tip of the spear; and yet I do see a discouraging number of poor decisions and bad turnovers, and missed shots (notwithstanding his recent good game). I hope you're right and I'm wrong about him.

---

This entire thread is teetering on the edge of insightful/interesting and exhausting/annoying for me.

A couple points to your comment and SocalTownie's raving review of my stat dump. First, yeah, obviously most of us watch the games and have our own eyeball tests. That's good and fine. The issue with the eyeball test over time is a) our eyeballs tend to see what they want to see and b) our memories of what we saw/see can be influenced and biased. Year-to-year data provide and objective evaluation. Plus, most people are going to be more critical of an 8-19 season compared to a 14-18 season. I'm not saying to blindly follow the data without context. I am saying I honestly can't remember exactly what players looked like at the beginning of this season, much less last season and the data provide an objective lens.

To your point about assist/TO stats, that's fair. But that's why I'd point to the poss% and min% stats with ith. For example, Brown is averaging 26 minutes per game this year compared to 19 last year. His average assists have gone up to 3.1 from 1.8 while TOs have gone from 1.1 to 2.0. His poss% has increased, meaning a higher percentage of possessions end with him doing something while he's on the court compared to last season. And despite this, he still has improved in virtually all statistical categories. Has that led to better on-court outcomes for Cal? No. But he has objectively improved. This is where bias can come in. Despite being a lesser player last year, I think fans had a more favorable impression because a) he was in a backup role on a team that won more games compared to a lead role in a team that won fewer games, b) expectations have (fairly or unfairly) shifted since he's no longer a freshman, and c) people are going to be more critical when the team takes a noticeable step back.

For Hyder, I actually think his assist/TO rate is more important because of his oddly high poss%. His on-court poss% is 25%, meaning when he's on the court, a quarter of Cal's possessions are ending with him (again, why he is so much more visible to fans than, say, a Jalen Celestine, who has a poss% of 13.8%, lower on the team than everyone besides Thorpe and Bowser). No one has a higher poss% rate than Hyder except for Bradley, who has one of the highest poss% in the country. While Hyder is only averaging 1.8 assists per game, he has the highest assist% on the team, meaning, his rate of assists per possession is the highest on the team.

All of this comes with a bit of grain of salt as Cal is a better shooting team this year. So assists are more likely to occur compared to last year. But Hyder wasn't on the team last year, obviously, so it's less of a factor for him compared to looking at year-over-year stats for Brown.

Anyway, I get it. I watch the games. Both Brown and Hyder looked overwhelmed and frustrating at times. But unless you've got a top point-guard recruit, that's what's going to happen. I imagine the hope was Foreman would be able to take some of the pressure off Brown/Hyder this season, but that clearly didn't happen. The hope is all three take another step forward next year because Cal doesn't have any other PGs coming in next year unless there's some unforeseen roster turnover.

---

I appreciate and learn from your take very much. I want to be clear that I am not down on Brown. While I don't have really high hopes for him, I am hopeful that he can become a decent facilitator/distributor type of PG and high level (and smarter) defender, kind of in the mold of Prentice McGruder or Rajon Rondo. I recognize no better PG option is likely to walk through the door in the Bradley/GA timeframe (I think Kelly likely stays an additional year beyond those two, to '22-'23).
But I am not as optimistic for Hyder. I stand by those observations i cited. Thanks for the help with the poss% and min% stats. If I'm understanding them correctly, though, it seems to me that Hyder's disproportionately high poss% is precisely his and Cal's problem. It seems to me that unless you're a KJ-type PG, a PG should not have a high poss%. And that's especially so when you've got poor shooting numbers and unremarkable assist/TO numbers, like Hyder has. Am I thinking of that correctly?

I have actually been a little pleased with Foreman. He's still not a particularly good PG, but it appears to me that he is trying to do the things Fox wants him to do (facilitate the offense, improve shot selection, and play better/tougher on-ball defense). While he's not there yet (and might not ever get there), it does appear to me that he is trying hard to do so, and I've noticed incremental improvement in those areas. And I give him credit for that. I was very concerned by his first couple games when I thought he was the second coming of Don Coleman (maybe my least favorite Cal
player ever, though I recognize DC played with great effort), and I thought he and Bradley would come to blows on the court.

My hope for next year at PG is that things click for Brown and we no longer have 3 PGs. I don't think PG by committee is a blueprint for success.

---

Yes and not quite.

I do think Hyder's poss% is too high for Cal to maximize its potential. While he does have the highest assist% on the team, he has the seventh-lowest offensive rating and a relatively low eFG%. Compare that to Kelly, who has a poss% almost six full percentage points lower than Hyder but has a 25 point better offensive rating and 18% higher eFG% and about half the TO%.

Based on numbers alone, Kelly is disturbingly under-used. Now, the counter-argument to that is first, the eye-test. Kelly is undersized compared to many P12 post players and as a post-player he's more prone to getting doubled, so it's tougher to get him a high poss% compared to a guard/perimeter player. The other argument that could be made (although this is speculation/assumption), is if his poss% goes up, other efficiency stats could drop. I don't think that'd be the case based on his prior seasons' data (poss% increases with efficiency stats), but it's an argument.

As for a PG leading the team, or taking up a higher proportion of poss%, it really just depends on your team and personnel. For example, Cal needs Bradley to have the highest poss% on the team because he's clearly the best offensive player. Same goes for a team like Oregon, where Chris Duarte and Eugene Omoruyi have the highest poss%. Not PGs, but those are the team's two best offensive players.

For USC, Evan Mobley has the highest poss%. That's what they want. But for Colorado, McKinley Wright has the highest poss% as a point guard. For Arizona, PG Akinjo and center Tubelis share the highest poss%. For Oregon State, Ethan Thompson, who's been playing PG and SG has the highest poss%. And, as you'd expect, PG Remy Martin has the highest poss% for ASU.

The biggest thing with poss% is, you want your most efficient offensive players getting the highest poss% regardless of position they play. For shot%, you want your most efficient shooters leading, again regardless of possession. I do think the PG position naturally will have a high poss% because even if the PG isn't taking the majority of the shots, the PG can often be the one contributing to the end of a possession.

Based on eFG% and shot%, I'd like to see Hyder/Foreman take up less shot% and shift that towards Anticevich/Kelly, which I think the eye-test also confirms.

---

NathanAllen said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

God bless your stamina, in addition to your perspective. I lean more towards Townie's preference for the eye test with this team, especially this particular season. I continue to hope you're right about Hyder, though I continue to not share your optimism there. Stats like Ass/TO I think are not terribly insightful for this season due to such limited playing time for each of our PGs, plus the fact that the offense so frequently goes through (and often starts with) Bradley, especially late in close games. The resulting stats for our PGs end up being misleading, IMO, as they are subject to the whim of somewhat random things that can happen, including who they're playing with (or against) on the floor, during the small stretches of minutes they play in any particular game. I think that's especially true for Hyder.

In Hyder I do not see quality physical traits, I do not see quality perimeter shooting, I do not see effective/consistent playmaking for a team offense, nor do I see disruptive on-ball defense at the tip of the spear; and yet I do see a discouraging number of poor decisions and bad turnovers, and missed shots (notwithstanding his recent good game). I hope you're right and I'm wrong about him.

---

This entire thread is teetering on the edge of insightful/interesting and exhausting/annoying for me.

A couple points to your comment and SocalTownie's raving review of my stat dump. First, yeah, obviously most of us watch the games and have our own eyeball tests. That's good and fine. The issue with the eyeball test over time is a) our eyeballs tend to see what they want to see and b) our memories of what we saw/see can be influenced and biased. Year-to-year data provide and objective evaluation. Plus, most people are going to be more critical of an 8-19 season compared to a 14-18 season. I'm not saying to blindly follow the data without context. I am saying I honestly can't remember exactly what players looked like at the beginning of this season, much less last season and the data provide an objective lens.

To your point about assist/TO stats, that's fair. But that's why I'd point to the poss% and min% stats with ith. For example, Brown is averaging 26 minutes per game this year compared to 19 last year. His average assists have gone up to 3.1 from 1.8 while TOs have gone from 1.1 to 2.0. His poss% has increased, meaning a higher percentage of possessions end with him doing something while he's on the court compared to last season. And despite this, he still has improved in virtually all statistical categories. Has that led to better on-court outcomes for Cal? No. But he has objectively improved. This is where bias can come in. Despite being a lesser player last year, I think fans had a more favorable impression because a) he was in a backup role on a team that won more games compared to a lead role in a team that won fewer games, b) expectations have (fairly or unfairly) shifted since he's no longer a freshman, and c) people are going to be more critical when the team takes a noticeable step back.

For Hyder, I actually think his assist/TO rate is more important because of his oddly high poss%. His on-court poss% is 25%, meaning when he's on the court, a quarter of Cal's possessions are ending with him (again, why he is so much more visible to fans than, say, a Jalen Celestine, who has a poss% of 13.8%, lower on the team than everyone besides Thorpe and Bowser). No one has a higher poss% rate than Hyder except for Bradley, who has one of the highest poss% in the country. While Hyder is only averaging 1.8 assists per game, he has the highest assist% on the team, meaning, his rate of assists per possession is the highest on the team.

All of this comes with a bit of grain of salt as Cal is a better shooting team this year. So assists are more likely to occur compared to last year. But Hyder wasn't on the team last year, obviously, so it's less of a factor for him compared to looking at year-over-year stats for Brown.

Anyway, I get it. I watch the games. Both Brown and Hyder looked overwhelmed and frustrating at times. But unless you've got a top point-guard recruit, that's what's going to happen. I imagine the hope was Foreman would be able to take some of the pressure off Brown/Hyder this season, but that clearly didn't happen. The hope is all three take another step forward next year because Cal doesn't have any other PGs coming in next year unless there's some unforeseen roster turnover.

---

I appreciate and learn from your take very much. I want to be clear that I am not down on Brown. While I don't have really high hopes for him, I am hopeful that he can become a decent facilitator/distributor type of PG and high level (and smarter) defender, kind of in the mold of Prentice McGruder or Rajon Rondo. I recognize no better PG option is likely to walk through the door in the Bradley/GA timeframe (I think Kelly likely stays an additional year beyond those two, to '22-'23).
But I am not as optimistic for Hyder. I stand by those observations i cited. Thanks for the help with the poss% and min% stats. If I'm understanding them correctly, though, it seems to me that Hyder's disproportionately high poss% is precisely his and Cal's problem. It seems to me that unless you're a KJ-type PG, a PG should not have a high poss%. And that's especially so when you've got poor shooting numbers and unremarkable assist/TO numbers, like Hyder has. Am I thinking of that correctly?

I have actually been a little pleased with Foreman. He's still not a particularly good PG, but it appears to me that he is trying to do the things Fox wants him to do (facilitate the offense, improve shot selection, and play better/tougher on-ball defense). While he's not there yet (and might not ever get there), it does appear to me that he is trying hard to do so, and I've noticed incremental improvement in those areas. And I give him credit for that. I was very concerned by his first couple games when I thought he was the second coming of Don Coleman (maybe my least favorite Cal
player ever, though I recognize DC played with great effort), and I thought he and Bradley would come to blows on the court.

My hope for next year at PG is that things click for Brown and we no longer have 3 PGs. I don't think PG by committee is a blueprint for success.

---

Yes and not quite.

I do think Hyder's poss% is too high for Cal to maximize its potential. While he does have the highest assist% on the team, he has the seventh-lowest offensive rating and a relatively low eFG%. Compare that to Kelly, who has a poss% almost six full percentage points lower than Hyder but has a 25 point better offensive rating and 18% higher eFG% and about half the TO%.

Based on numbers alone, Kelly is disturbingly under-used. Now, the counter-argument to that is first, the eye-test. Kelly is undersized compared to many P12 post players and as a post-player he's more prone to getting doubled, so it's tougher to get him a high poss% compared to a guard/perimeter player. The other argument that could be made (although this is speculation/assumption), is if his poss% goes up, other efficiency stats could drop. I don't think that'd be the case based on his prior seasons' data (poss% increases with efficiency stats), but it's an argument.

As for a PG leading the team, or taking up a higher proportion of poss%, it really just depends on your team and personnel. For example, Cal needs Bradley to have the highest poss% on the team because he's clearly the best offensive player. Same goes for a team like Oregon, where Chris Duarte and Eugene Omoruyi have the highest poss%. Not PGs, but those are the team's two best offensive players.

For USC, Evan Mobley has the highest poss%. That's what they want. But for Colorado, McKinley Wright has the highest poss% as a point guard. For Arizona, PG Akinjo and center Tubelis share the highest poss%. For Oregon State, Ethan Thompson, who's been playing PG and SG has the highest poss%. And, as you'd expect, PG Remy Martin has the highest poss% for ASU.

The biggest thing with poss% is, you want your most efficient offensive players getting the highest poss% regardless of position they play. For shot%, you want your most efficient shooters leading, again regardless of possession. I do think the PG position naturally will have a high poss% because even if the PG isn't taking the majority of the shots, the PG can often be the one contributing to the end of a possession.

Based on eFG% and shot%, I'd like to see Hyder/Foreman take up less shot% and shift that towards Anticevich/Kelly, which I think the eye-test also confirms.

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season

---

LMAO

I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication.

---

drizzlybear said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season

---

LMAO

I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication.

---

See the word "if". Understand the word "prognostication".

---

Civil Bear said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season

---

LMAO

I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication.

---

See the word "if". Understand the word "prognostication".

---

In all fairness to the Jonah, just seeing Cal and the NCAA Tourney in the same sentence likely triggered his Knowelton Derangement Syndrom (KDS).

---

NathanAllen said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

God bless your stamina, in addition to your perspective. I lean more towards Townie's preference for the eye test with this team, especially this particular season. I continue to hope you're right about Hyder, though I continue to not share your optimism there. Stats like Ass/TO I think are not terribly insightful for this season due to such limited playing time for each of our PGs, plus the fact that the offense so frequently goes through (and often starts with) Bradley, especially late in close games. The resulting stats for our PGs end up being misleading, IMO, as they are subject to the whim of somewhat random things that can happen, including who they're playing with (or against) on the floor, during the small stretches of minutes they play in any particular game. I think that's especially true for Hyder.

In Hyder I do not see quality physical traits, I do not see quality perimeter shooting, I do not see effective/consistent playmaking for a team offense, nor do I see disruptive on-ball defense at the tip of the spear; and yet I do see a discouraging number of poor decisions and bad turnovers, and missed shots (notwithstanding his recent good game). I hope you're right and I'm wrong about him.

---

This entire thread is teetering on the edge of insightful/interesting and exhausting/annoying for me.

A couple points to your comment and SocalTownie's raving review of my stat dump. First, yeah, obviously most of us watch the games and have our own eyeball tests. That's good and fine. The issue with the eyeball test over time is a) our eyeballs tend to see what they want to see and b) our memories of what we saw/see can be influenced and biased. Year-to-year data provide and objective evaluation. Plus, most people are going to be more critical of an 8-19 season compared to a 14-18 season. I'm not saying to blindly follow the data without context. I am saying I honestly can't remember exactly what players looked like at the beginning of this season, much less last season and the data provide an objective lens.

To your point about assist/TO stats, that's fair. But that's why I'd point to the poss% and min% stats with ith. For example, Brown is averaging 26 minutes per game this year compared to 19 last year. His average assists have gone up to 3.1 from 1.8 while TOs have gone from 1.1 to 2.0. His poss% has increased, meaning a higher percentage of possessions end with him doing something while he's on the court compared to last season. And despite this, he still has improved in virtually all statistical categories. Has that led to better on-court outcomes for Cal? No. But he has objectively improved. This is where bias can come in. Despite being a lesser player last year, I think fans had a more favorable impression because a) he was in a backup role on a team that won more games compared to a lead role in a team that won fewer games, b) expectations have (fairly or unfairly) shifted since he's no longer a freshman, and c) people are going to be more critical when the team takes a noticeable step back.

For Hyder, I actually think his assist/TO rate is more important because of his oddly high poss%. His on-court poss% is 25%, meaning when he's on the court, a quarter of Cal's possessions are ending with him (again, why he is so much more visible to fans than, say, a Jalen Celestine, who has a poss% of 13.8%, lower on the team than everyone besides Thorpe and Bowser). No one has a higher poss% rate than Hyder except for Bradley, who has one of the highest poss% in the country. While Hyder is only averaging 1.8 assists per game, he has the highest assist% on the team, meaning, his rate of assists per possession is the highest on the team.

All of this comes with a bit of grain of salt as Cal is a better shooting team this year. So assists are more likely to occur compared to last year. But Hyder wasn't on the team last year, obviously, so it's less of a factor for him compared to looking at year-over-year stats for Brown.

Anyway, I get it. I watch the games. Both Brown and Hyder looked overwhelmed and frustrating at times. But unless you've got a top point-guard recruit, that's what's going to happen. I imagine the hope was Foreman would be able to take some of the pressure off Brown/Hyder this season, but that clearly didn't happen. The hope is all three take another step forward next year because Cal doesn't have any other PGs coming in next year unless there's some unforeseen roster turnover.

---

I appreciate and learn from your take very much. I want to be clear that I am not down on Brown. While I don't have really high hopes for him, I am hopeful that he can become a decent facilitator/distributor type of PG and high level (and smarter) defender, kind of in the mold of Prentice McGruder or Rajon Rondo. I recognize no better PG option is likely to walk through the door in the Bradley/GA timeframe (I think Kelly likely stays an additional year beyond those two, to '22-'23).
But I am not as optimistic for Hyder. I stand by those observations i cited. Thanks for the help with the poss% and min% stats. If I'm understanding them correctly, though, it seems to me that Hyder's disproportionately high poss% is precisely his and Cal's problem. It seems to me that unless you're a KJ-type PG, a PG should not have a high poss%. And that's especially so when you've got poor shooting numbers and unremarkable assist/TO numbers, like Hyder has. Am I thinking of that correctly?

I have actually been a little pleased with Foreman. He's still not a particularly good PG, but it appears to me that he is trying to do the things Fox wants him to do (facilitate the offense, improve shot selection, and play better/tougher on-ball defense). While he's not there yet (and might not ever get there), it does appear to me that he is trying hard to do so, and I've noticed incremental improvement in those areas. And I give him credit for that. I was very concerned by his first couple games when I thought he was the second coming of Don Coleman (maybe my least favorite Cal
player ever, though I recognize DC played with great effort), and I thought he and Bradley would come to blows on the court.

My hope for next year at PG is that things click for Brown and we no longer have 3 PGs. I don't think PG by committee is a blueprint for success.

---

Yes and not quite.

I do think Hyder's poss% is too high for Cal to maximize its potential. While he does have the highest assist% on the team, he has the seventh-lowest offensive rating and a relatively low eFG%. Compare that to Kelly, who has a poss% almost six full percentage points lower than Hyder but has a 25 point better offensive rating and 18% higher eFG% and about half the TO%.

Based on numbers alone, Kelly is disturbingly under-used. Now, the counter-argument to that is first, the eye-test. Kelly is undersized compared to many P12 post players and as a post-player he's more prone to getting doubled, so it's tougher to get him a high poss% compared to a guard/perimeter player. The other argument that could be made (although this is speculation/assumption), is if his poss% goes up, other efficiency stats could drop. I don't think that'd be the case based on his prior seasons' data (poss% increases with efficiency stats), but it's an argument.

As for a PG leading the team, or taking up a higher proportion of poss%, it really just depends on your team and personnel. For example, Cal needs Bradley to have the highest poss% on the team because he's clearly the best offensive player. Same goes for a team like Oregon, where Chris Duarte and Eugene Omoruyi have the highest poss%. Not PGs, but those are the team's two best offensive players.

For USC, Evan Mobley has the highest poss%. That's what they want. But for Colorado, McKinley Wright has the highest poss% as a point guard. For Arizona, PG Akinjo and center Tubelis share the highest poss%. For Oregon State, Ethan Thompson, who's been playing PG and SG has the highest poss%. And, as you'd expect, PG Remy Martin has the highest poss% for ASU.

The biggest thing with poss% is, you want your most efficient offensive players getting the highest poss% regardless of position they play. For shot%, you want your most efficient shooters leading, again regardless of possession. I do think the PG position naturally will have a high poss% because even if the PG isn't taking the majority of the shots, the PG can often be the one contributing to the end of a possession.

Based on eFG% and shot%, I'd like to see Hyder/Foreman take up less shot% and shift that towards Anticevich/Kelly, which I think the eye-test also confirms.

---

I'll need a primer on those metrics to make sure I'm understanding and using them correctly (I can research it myself; not asking you to provide it), but your last point is really what I think I'm getting at.

I have a bias against a high volume PG. I generally like to see the PG be more of a facilitator for others (though still with ability to score when opportunities present) in the context of an offense that shares the ball and systematically creates opportunities among multiple offensive weapons. Still, aside from personal or coach's preference, I think the other key factor is the abilities of the particular PG in question. I would think we do not want a high poss% for a PG with poor shooting percentages (does that translate to efficiency?). Those others PGs you mentioned with high poss% I'm guessing are much more efficient and capable scorers than is Hyder.

---

Bingo.

You probably already looked up the definitions, but here are some general definitions:

ORtg: Offensive Rating is points produced by a player per 100 possessions
eFG%: Effective Field Goal Percentage adjusts for added-value of 3PT FGs (Exact formula: (FGM + 0.5*3PM) / FGA)
Shot%: Percentage of team's shots taken by player, adjusted for minutes played.
Poss% (Usage): This describes a player's role in the offense, by explaining how many of his team's possessions a player is personally responsible for ending while he is on the floor. Average would be 20% since there are five players on the court at a time.

Here's a post on pairing offensive rating with poss%: https://kenpom.com/blog/offensive-ratingpossession-usage/

The upshot (like I was saying above) is you want to pair your highest poss% with your highest ORtg players for the most efficient offensive version of your team.

Kelly has the highest ORtg on the team (115.7) but just a 19% poss%. Hyder's ORtg is 90.9 and a poss% of 24.7%. Bradley is ORtg of 103.3 and a 32.0% poss%, which is the 18th-highest in the nation. Very few teams power conference teams (two) have a player with a higher poss% than Bradley.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season

---

LMAO

I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication.

---

See the word "if". Understand the word "prognostication".

---

I absolutely agree that if we make the tournament next year, we should add a year or two to his contract. He will have earned that opportunity.

When my kids were little, we took them to Tahoe for a little vacation. My daughter says to me that she wants a house in Tahoe with a big balcony overlooking a meadow. I told her that if we ever buy a house in Tahoe I'll make sure it has a big balcony overlooking a meadow.

And in the same way, I tell you now that if we make the tournament next year we will extend him.

Pretty sure that was Jonah's point.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season

---

LMAO

I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication.

---

See the word "if". Understand the word "prognostication".

---

I absolutely agree that if we make the tournament next year, we should add a year or two to his contract. He will have earned that opportunity.

When my kids were little, we took them to Tahoe for a little vacation. My daughter says to me that she wants a house in Tahoe with a big balcony overlooking a meadow. I told her that if we ever buy a house in Tahoe I'll make sure it has a big balcony overlooking a meadow.

And in the same way, I tell you now that if we make the tournament next year we will extend him.

Pretty sure that was Jonah's point.

---

drizzlybear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season

---

LMAO

I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication.

---

See the word "if". Understand the word "prognostication".

---

I absolutely agree that if we make the tournament next year, we should add a year or two to his contract. He will have earned that opportunity.

When my kids were little, we took them to Tahoe for a little vacation. My daughter says to me that she wants a house in Tahoe with a big balcony overlooking a meadow. I told her that if we ever buy a house in Tahoe I'll make sure it has a big balcony overlooking a meadow.

And in the same way, I tell you now that if we make the tournament next year we will extend him.

Pretty sure that was Jonah's point.

---

Um, I have no idea how likely it was when your daughter was little that you would one day buy a house in Tahoe.

But to whatever your point is, so when your daughter said that to you, and a guy nearby overhears your response and says, "LMAO. I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication (of you one day buying a house in Tahoe)", you think, yeah that guy gets it.

It's actually even more off base than that because your comment to your daughter wasn't in the context of providing the expected results of three different outcome scenarios, like Nathan was doing with next season.

Fwiw, I agree that ncaa tournament is unlikely next year (assuming that was SJ's point and that 'unlikely' is along the lines of the chances of you buying a home in Tahoe). But I don't feel the need to insult Nathan or anyone else for being willing to include it among the range of possibilities for next season, unlikely though it may be.

---

calumnus said:

---

My prediction:
If we make the NCAA tournament next year we will extend Fox's contract and everyone on this board will be happy and will support that.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season

---

LMAO

I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication.

---

See the word "if". Understand the word "prognostication".

---

I absolutely agree that if we make the tournament next year, we should add a year or two to his contract. He will have earned that opportunity.

When my kids were little, we took them to Tahoe for a little vacation. My daughter says to me that she wants a house in Tahoe with a big balcony overlooking a meadow. I told her that if we ever buy a house in Tahoe I'll make sure it has a big balcony overlooking a meadow.

And in the same way, I tell you now that if we make the tournament next year we will extend him.

Pretty sure that was Jonah's point.

---

Um, I have no idea how likely it was when your daughter was little that you would one day buy a house in Tahoe.

But to whatever your point is, so when your daughter said that to you, and a guy nearby overhears your response and says, "LMAO. I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication (of you one day buying a house in Tahoe)", you think, yeah that guy gets it.

It's actually even more off base than that because your comment to your daughter wasn't in the context of providing the expected results of three different outcome scenarios, like Nathan was doing with next season.

Fwiw, I agree that ncaa tournament is unlikely next year (assuming that was SJ's point and that 'unlikely' is along the lines of the chances of you buying a home in Tahoe). But I don't feel the need to insult Nathan or anyone else for being willing to include it among the range of possibilities for next season, unlikely though it may be.

---

If Cal wins the national championship next year, Fox should get a ten year extension

---

calumnus said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Quick summary of the thread:

• Fire Fox now
• Fire Fox after the tourney
• Replace Fox after next season
• Replace Fox after season Four

I couldn't find anyone suggesting that Fox is the coach of the future and that we should extend his contract. That seems telling to me.

---

This is going to be unpopular among the vocal posters of this thread, but if Cal makes the NCAA Tourney next season

---

LMAO

I would love to take as much money as you'd be willing to put up to teach you a lesson on that awful prognostication.

---

See the word "if". Understand the word "prognostication".

---

I absolutely agree that if we make the tournament next year, we should add a year or two to his contract. He will have earned that opportunity.

When my kids were little, we took them to Tahoe for a little vacation. My daughter says to me that she wants a house in Tahoe with a big balcony overlooking a meadow. I told her that if we ever buy a house in Tahoe I'll make sure it has a big balcony overlooking a meadow.

And in the same way, I tell you now that if we make the tournament next year we will extend him.

Pretty sure that was Jonah's point.

---

My prediction:
If we make the NCAA tournament next year we will extend Fox's contract and everyone on this board will be happy and will support that.

---