I extrapolated stats to a 40 minute game, and highlighted some stats that stood out a little (except Monty and Dimetrios who didn't play in enough game minutes for meaningful stats)

Box Score Plus/Minus for those with significant minutes in the PAC-12

1. Evan Mobley USC 13.7
2. Duarte Oregon 11.5
3. Wright Colorado 10.2
4. Da Silva Stanford 9.7
5. Walker Colorado 8.4
6. Omoruyi Oregon 8.2
7. Jaquez UCLA 8.0
8. Horne Colorado 7.9
9. Juzang UCLA 7.3
10. Mathurin Arizona 7.3
.
.
12. Bradley Cal 6.8
.
.
38. Kelly Cal 4.7
.
.
70. Celestine Cal 3.0
.
72. Anticevich Cal 2.8
.
.
92. Brown 0.8
.
94. Betley 0.8
.
.
106. Thiemann -0.6
107. Foreman -0.7
108. Thorpe -0.8
.
115. Kuany -1.7
.
117. Hyder -2.2
.
119. Bowser -2.9

PAC-12 Scoring
1. Martin ASU 19.1
2. Da Silva Stanford 18.5
3. Bradley Cal 18.0
4. Benton WSU 17.7
5. Allen Utah 17.2
6. Duarte Oregon 17.1
7. Omoruyi Oregon 17.1
8. E. Mobley USC 16.4
9. Juzang UCLA 16.0
10. Thompson OSU 15.7
.
34. Kelly Cal 10.3
.
49. Anticevich Cal 8.9
50. Betley Cal 8.5
.
62. Foreman Cal 7.2
.
77. Hyder Cal 5.4
.
84. Brown Cal 5.2
.
110. Thiemann Cal 2.9
111. Celestine Cal 2.8
.
121. Kuany Cal 2.3
.
130. Klonaras Cal 1.5
.
137. Thorpe Cal 1.2
.
146. Bowser Cal 0.8
.
150. Welle Cal 0.7

A starting 5 based on BSPM (assuming no further additions):

1 - Brown
2 - Celestine
3 - Betley
4 - Anticevich
5 - Kelly

Problem is the rest of the guys are in the negative.

calumnus said:

---

Box Score Plus/Minus for those with significant minutes in the PAC-12

1. Evan Mobley USC 13.7
2. Duarte Oregon 11.5
3. Wright Colorado 10.2
4. Da Silva Stanford 9.7
5. Walker Colorado 8.4
6. Omoruyi Oregon 8.2
7. Jaquez UCLA 8.0
8. Horne Colorado 7.9
9. Juzang UCLA 7.3
10. Mathurin Arizona 7.3
.
.
12. Bradley Cal 6.8
.
.
38. Kelly Cal 4.7
.
.
70. Celestine Cal 3.0
.
72. Anticevich Cal 2.8
.
.
92. Brown 0.8
.
94. Betley 0.8
.
.
106. Thiemann -0.6
107. Foreman -0.7
108. Thorpe -0.8
.
115. Kuany -1.7
.
117. Hyder -2.2
.
119. Bowser -2.9

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

A starting 5 based on BSPM (assuming no further additions):

1 - Brown
2 - Celestine
3 - Betley
4 - Anticevich
5 - Kelly

Problem is the rest of the guys are in the negative.

---

Betley isn't returning.

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

A starting 5 based on BSPM (assuming no further additions):

1 - Brown
2 - Celestine
3 - Betley
4 - Anticevich
5 - Kelly

Problem is the rest of the guys are in the negative.

calumnus said:

---

Box Score Plus/Minus for those with significant minutes in the PAC-12

1. Evan Mobley USC 13.7
2. Duarte Oregon 11.5
3. Wright Colorado 10.2
4. Da Silva Stanford 9.7
5. Walker Colorado 8.4
6. Omoruyi Oregon 8.2
7. Jaquez UCLA 8.0
8. Horne Colorado 7.9
9. Juzang UCLA 7.3
10. Mathurin Arizona 7.3
.
.
12. Bradley Cal 6.8
.
.
38. Kelly Cal 4.7
.
.
70. Celestine Cal 3.0
.
72. Anticevich Cal 2.8
.
.
92. Brown 0.8
.
94. Betley 0.8
.
.
106. Thiemann -0.6
107. Foreman -0.7
108. Thorpe -0.8
.
115. Kuany -1.7
.
117. Hyder -2.2
.
119. Bowser -2.9

---

---

Bigger Problem is Betley starting IMHO. He's fine as a shooter coming off the bench situationally, but he is probably at his ceiling in terms of development - and we can't afford to start a defensive liability. I would much rather see a younger developing player get those minutes (Bowser, Hyder, Kuany, Frosh)

Civil Bear said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

A starting 5 based on BSPM (assuming no further additions):

1 - Brown
2 - Celestine
3 - Betley
4 - Anticevich
5 - Kelly

Problem is the rest of the guys are in the negative.

---

Betley isn't returning.

---

That's even worse then. He's a grad transfer, so his decision is puzzling to me. Is he done with all his coursework or does he just no longer want to play?

Edit: just saw his reasoning from a Faraudo article. Good luck to him on his future endeavors.

BeachedBear said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

A starting 5 based on BSPM (assuming no further additions):

1 - Brown
2 - Celestine
3 - Betley
4 - Anticevich
5 - Kelly

Problem is the rest of the guys are in the negative.

calumnus said:

---

Box Score Plus/Minus for those with significant minutes in the PAC-12

1. Evan Mobley USC 13.7
2. Duarte Oregon 11.5
3. Wright Colorado 10.2
4. Da Silva Stanford 9.7
5. Walker Colorado 8.4
6. Omoruyi Oregon 8.2
7. Jaquez UCLA 8.0
8. Horne Colorado 7.9
9. Juzang UCLA 7.3
10. Mathurin Arizona 7.3
.
.
12. Bradley Cal 6.8
.
.
38. Kelly Cal 4.7
.
.
70. Celestine Cal 3.0
.
72. Anticevich Cal 2.8
.
.
92. Brown 0.8
.
94. Betley 0.8
.
.
106. Thiemann -0.6
107. Foreman -0.7
108. Thorpe -0.8
.
115. Kuany -1.7
.
117. Hyder -2.2
.
119. Bowser -2.9

---

---

Bigger Problem is Betley starting IMHO. He's fine as a shooter coming off the bench situationally, but he is probably at his ceiling in terms of development - and we can't afford to start a defensive liability. I would much rather see a younger developing player get those minutes (Bowser, Hyder, Kuany, Frosh)

---

Honestly, none of these guys is a typical Cal starter (based on the last nearly 30 years that I've been following the program). Maybe Kelly would start at other PAC-12 schools (haven't looked at every team's projected rosters yet).

Apparently Betley is gone, but I'm hoping for a starting wing tandem of Roberson and Celestine. That's the best we can hope for next season.

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

A starting 5 based on BSPM (assuming no further additions):

1 - Brown
2 - Celestine
3 - Betley
4 - Anticevich
5 - Kelly

Problem is the rest of the guys are in the negative.

calumnus said:

---

Box Score Plus/Minus for those with significant minutes in the PAC-12

1. Evan Mobley USC 13.7
2. Duarte Oregon 11.5
3. Wright Colorado 10.2
4. Da Silva Stanford 9.7
5. Walker Colorado 8.4
6. Omoruyi Oregon 8.2
7. Jaquez UCLA 8.0
8. Horne Colorado 7.9
9. Juzang UCLA 7.3
10. Mathurin Arizona 7.3
.
.
12. Bradley Cal 6.8
.
.
38. Kelly Cal 4.7
.
.
70. Celestine Cal 3.0
.
72. Anticevich Cal 2.8
.
.
92. Brown 0.8
.
94. Betley 0.8
.
.
106. Thiemann -0.6
107. Foreman -0.7
108. Thorpe -0.8
.
115. Kuany -1.7
.
117. Hyder -2.2
.
119. Bowser -2.9

---

---

Bigger Problem is Betley starting IMHO. He's fine as a shooter coming off the bench situationally, but he is probably at his ceiling in terms of development - and we can't afford to start a defensive liability. I would much rather see a younger developing player get those minutes (Bowser, Hyder, Kuany, Frosh)

---

Honestly, none of these guys is a typical Cal starter (based on the last nearly 30 years that I've been following the program). Maybe Kelly would start at other PAC-12 schools (haven't looked at every team's projected rosters yet).

Apparently Betley is gone, but I'm hoping for a starting wing tandem of Roberson and Celestine. That's the best we can hope for next season.

---

Agreed. I also think Anticevich may not start, but would be a key rotational player on a number of P12 schools.

I was hoping this upcoming season would test the model of having a solid veteran team, with one star player, and a quality bench

now we don't have the one star player so we won't know if this can be a successful formula for Cal

when I look at that line up I see a solid starting five, but with no one that you can give the ball to in crunch time to play a play. Kelly could do that depending on matchups, but we first have to get the ball to him.

It needs to be a guard/wing

2 seasons ago, we had two: Bradley and Paris. Last season we only had Bradley, and that was a problem.

But next season I don't see any. Huge problem.

HoopDreams said:

---

I was hoping this upcoming season would test the model of having a solid veteran team, with one star player, and a quality bench

now we don't have the one star player so we won't know if this can be a successful formula for Cal

when I look at that line up I see a solid starting five, but with no one that you can give the ball to in crunch time to play a play. Kelly could do that depending on matchups, but we first have to get the ball to him.

It needs to be a guard/wing

2 seasons ago, we had two: Bradley and Paris. Last season we only had Bradley, and that was a problem.

But next season I don't see any. Huge problem.

---

This season we were #309 in scoring per game and now we lost our main scorer with no one comparable coming in as of yet. Next year with just a 7 point per game drop we might match Knowlton's old school, Air Force, #343 in scoring, one of the 5 lowest scoring teams in the country.

I expect we will see improvement by Brown and Celestine, with Anticevich and Kelly about the same. We need one other guy to step up at the 3, maybe one of the freshman or a transfer. Without Bradley, the offense will need to get guys open looks and generate points. Things look bad at UW so maybe we stay out of the cellar?

HoopDreams said:

---

I was hoping this upcoming season would test the model of having a solid veteran team, with one star player, and a quality bench

now we don't have the one star player so we won't know if this can be a successful formula for Cal

when I look at that line up I see a solid starting five, but with no one that you can give the ball to in crunch time to play a play. Kelly could do that depending on matchups, but we first have to get the ball to him.

It needs to be a guard/wing

2 seasons ago, we had two: Bradley and Paris. Last season we only had Bradley, and that was a problem.

But next season I don't see any. Huge problem.

---

I just don't see this as a realistic assessment. Our lineup is "solid" in the sense that you don't point to any one guy and say he is wasted space. But, honestly, if you were to go through every team's lineup and rank the main players at every position 1-12, where would our guys rank? How many would rank in the top 6? And then for the bench rank the 6th man, 7th man, 8th man. Where would we rank? It just isn't a solid lineup.

Even if Bradley returned, it was not a test of the model. At least not what I think most people are talking about. The model is one star player - an NBA type guy, surrounded by guys who may not be NBA guys, but who are top 6 if not higher players as they walk out on the court as seniors compared to NBA guys playing on other teams as freshmen. Nothing about our team was that. Frankly, as much as I like him, Bradley is the number 2 guy on that team. He is an extremely good player, but your star player has to be compared to the other team's star players. Bradley is our best player. He can't drag an otherwise nondescript team to the top of the conference.

Probably the closest we have come to the model you are describing is Braun's first year with Ed Gray the star with a bunch of veterans. We won a conference championship with just the veterans and no star. (Could have tested the model if Andersen had stayed) I'd say RFK's senior year was another year we did well with all veterans but no star.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I don't think this is a model anyone is recruiting towards. I think the model is to put the best players on the floor. I think the point is that sometimes Cal can recruit one big star, and that helps. And sometimes Cal can put together a group of good veterans, and that helps. But it is more a matter of consistently putting together the veterans and hoping one day we can time it so the big star comes in when they peak.

I love Bradley, but he is a guy that Cal, until recently, has been able to get on a regular basis. He is Joe Shipp or Sean Lampley. He is not Shareef. That is what people mean.

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I was hoping this upcoming season would test the model of having a solid veteran team, with one star player, and a quality bench

now we don't have the one star player so we won't know if this can be a successful formula for Cal

when I look at that line up I see a solid starting five, but with no one that you can give the ball to in crunch time to play a play. Kelly could do that depending on matchups, but we first have to get the ball to him.

It needs to be a guard/wing

2 seasons ago, we had two: Bradley and Paris. Last season we only had Bradley, and that was a problem.

But next season I don't see any. Huge problem.

---

I just don't see this as a realistic assessment. Our lineup is "solid" in the sense that you don't point to any one guy and say he is wasted space. But, honestly, if you were to go through every team's lineup and rank the main players at every position 1-12, where would our guys rank? How many would rank in the top 6? And then for the bench rank the 6th man, 7th man, 8th man. Where would we rank? It just isn't a solid lineup.

Even if Bradley returned, it was not a test of the model. At least not what I think most people are talking about. The model is one star player - an NBA type guy, surrounded by guys who may not be NBA guys, but who are top 6 if not higher players as they walk out on the court as seniors compared to NBA guys playing on other teams as freshmen. Nothing about our team was that. Frankly, as much as I like him, Bradley is the number 2 guy on that team. He is an extremely good player, but your star player has to be compared to the other team's star players. Bradley is our best player. He can't drag an otherwise nondescript team to the top of the conference.

Probably the closest we have come to the model you are describing is Braun's first year with Ed Gray the star with a bunch of veterans. We won a conference championship with just the veterans and no star. (Could have tested the model if Andersen had stayed) I'd say RFK's senior year was another year we did well with all veterans but no star.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I don't think this is a model anyone is recruiting towards. I think the model is to put the best players on the floor. I think the point is that sometimes Cal can recruit one big star, and that helps. And sometimes Cal can put together a group of good veterans, and that helps. But it is more a matter of consistently putting together the veterans and hoping one day we can time it so the big star comes in when they peak.

I love Bradley, but he is a guy that Cal, until recently, has been able to get on a regular basis. He is Joe Shipp or Sean Lampley. He is not Shareef. That is what people mean.

---

that's a reasonable view

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

A starting 5 based on BSPM (assuming no further additions):

1 - Brown
2 - Celestine
3 - Betley
4 - Anticevich
5 - Kelly

Problem is the rest of the guys are in the negative.

calumnus said:

---

Box Score Plus/Minus for those with significant minutes in the PAC-12

1. Evan Mobley USC 13.7
2. Duarte Oregon 11.5
3. Wright Colorado 10.2
4. Da Silva Stanford 9.7
5. Walker Colorado 8.4
6. Omoruyi Oregon 8.2
7. Jaquez UCLA 8.0
8. Horne Colorado 7.9
9. Juzang UCLA 7.3
10. Mathurin Arizona 7.3
.
.
12. Bradley Cal 6.8
.
.
38. Kelly Cal 4.7
.
.
70. Celestine Cal 3.0
.
72. Anticevich Cal 2.8
.
.
92. Brown 0.8
.
94. Betley 0.8
.
.
106. Thiemann -0.6
107. Foreman -0.7
108. Thorpe -0.8
.
115. Kuany -1.7
.
117. Hyder -2.2
.
119. Bowser -2.9

---

---

Bigger Problem is Betley starting IMHO. He's fine as a shooter coming off the bench situationally, but he is probably at his ceiling in terms of development - and we can't afford to start a defensive liability. I would much rather see a younger developing player get those minutes (Bowser, Hyder, Kuany, Frosh)

---

Honestly, none of these guys is a typical Cal starter (based on the last nearly 30 years that I've been following the program). Maybe Kelly would start at other PAC-12 schools (haven't looked at every team's projected rosters yet).

Apparently Betley is gone, but I'm hoping for a starting wing tandem of Roberson and Celestine. That's the best we can hope for next season.

---

Brown, Kelly and Anticevitch are known entities, we can hope for continued improvement but expecting quantum leaps would be unreasonable.

Thiemann and Thorpe are frontline back-ups at this point, though Thorpe could be deserve more PT.

Celestine is being counted on to step up into the starter role big time, IMO.

We need one of the following to emerge as a worthy starter and a second as a quality backup at the 2/3:
1. Roberson
2. Foreman
3. Anyanwu
4. Alajiki
5. Kuany
6. Bowser
7. Klonaras
8. Hyder
9. An incoming transfer or recruit

Again, one from the list as a starter, one more getting major minutes in the rotation as a back-up.

What an effing disaster we are headed for!