4thGenCal said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Thanks for the post. Adding a some points:

Agree Kelly needs to be ALLOWED to shoot the 15 footer AND the three. He obviously doesn't have the green light for those shots but he's capable and we need his offense

Brown needs to slow down on offense, by improving his ball handling, and more Hesitation moves. Right now he tries to use his quickness to drive, but he doesn't finish well over rim protectors and ends up with no where to go

Lars needs to strengthen his low body so he can move better. His upside will mainly be his defense and rebounding. We should not try to run the offense through him.

Celestine and Jared need to get healthy

Monty needs to get healthy and be a shooter scorer and defender. Maybe too much to ask but he showed flashes in limited minutes

Foreman is too one dimensional as a 3 point specialist, but his percentages we too low for the number of shots he took. We will have fewer shooters this year, but the number of shots should drop anyway. He needs to be able to score off the bounce to expand too be less one dimensional but given his size he needs to practice his tear drop a hundred shots a day

HearstMining said:

---

On the Playing Out the String thread, Big C talked about finding some hope and meaning (implicitly, for Cal basketball - I'm sure his life in general is full of both) and I immediately started thinking about adding specific hopes but that wandered from the topic, so I'm starting this new thread. I'm not thinking about the larger picture (recruiting, coaching direction, institutional support, etc), that's too depressing. I'm thinking about players and maybe tactics for the upcoming season. Several Many of you are better analysts than I, so what are your thoughts?

Andre Kelly - Along with improved endurance, I want to see some muscle definition on this guy! The weight room and maybe some plyometrics to improve his vertical and quickness. His jump hook works against guys who are 6'-9" or less, maybe he needs a short turnaround shot to his right as a complement. I think he could step out and hit a 12-15ft jumper, too.

Joel Brown - Free-throw form needs a complete rebuild. Develop a floater to use once he's in the key. Play better defense with his body, he's quick enough to do it.

Lars T - As with Kelly, improve quickness. Maybe more focus on offensive rebounding and less on getting the ball on the block and shooting because he clearly has no idea what to do when he gets that pass down low.

Jalen Celestine - Like the Loch Ness Monster, he appears long enough to get people intrigued then ZIP - he submerges. Based on what we've seen, if he gets stronger, maybe the rest takes care of itself.

Jarred Hyder - He didn't appear to be mentally or physically ready to play PAC12 basketball, so improved mental focus and a stronger upper body should be on his to-do list. Needs to become a more useful passer - it seemed like he either passed as a bail-out when he couldn't get a shot off or just a perimeter pass to another guard that initiated nothing. The team needs him to improve his outside shot (and shot selection) but I don't know if his current form really works. Maybe it can - us old f@rts remember Jamal Wilkes' unorthodox jumper!

Overall - SFCity, if he reads this, will immediately think, "Wait! You didn't mention assists!" Fair enough - I think there will be more assists if the players have additional options on offense. Defenders overplayed the pass like crazy and yet nobody ever went backdoor. Likewise, I hardly saw any off-ball or weak-side screens. Lots of poorly executed ball screens, though!

Defensively, I thought Cal generally played a lousy zone, which should improve with a full practice schedule. I know Cal's 3pt defense was abysmal, was it a problem with scheme or execution?

---

---

Mostly all good points. Why would you want Kelly shooting threes? If you throw out his first year where he had only 3 attempts, and last year, where he had none, he has shot threes at only 25%. Kelly is not even a good free throw shooter yet. I don't mind him shooting a 10-15 footer, but it will take him away from the basket, and he is the best rebounder in the rotation so that weakens our rebounding. And if he doesn't make a good percentage away from the basket, no one will come out to guard him, will they? Then you are playing 4 on 5.

As for Foreman, his percentage dropped when he came to Cal. I think he is too short and not skilled enough to score much on the drive. What about having him shoot 12 footers off the glass from behind a double screen, like Jorge, Cobbs, and Crabbe used to do? Maybe a play like that is too complicated for Fox, I don't know, but I think such a play might be made to order for Foreman.

---

fair point, but I don't know where are scoring will come from, and we lost 2 three point shooters, and gained zero.

If I can learn a floater, Foreman can learn a footer

---

You are right about the scoring. I think Fox will have to find a way to get the team to play more efficiently with better shot selection. As for three point shooting, last season some players took too many three point attempts, and turned out to be poor or below average shooters. I am thinking of Kuany, Hyder, and Foreman. Some players who shot threes at a higher percentage, but took very few attempts. These are Celestine and Brown. The obvious strategy would be for Kuany, Hyder, and Foreman to limit their three point attempts, cut them down, and have Celestine and Brown (our best returning three-point shooters, percentage-wise) increase their number of attempts. Foreman can make threes, but he needs to be more selective, and take only open ones. Celestine has a shooting percentage double that of Hyder and Kuany, so he should be shooting more threes than either of them, until they prove they can make them. Celestine's attempts will go up naturally, because he will be a starter. Last season, he averaged only 12 minutes. Brown has a very unorthodox stroke, but if he keeps making them at a .387 clip, he needs to increase his attempts. Anticevich shoots threes well enough, but he could increase his attempts by one or two per game.

The other point is we need better scoring from the mid-range and inside, to where we don't need to fill the air with three point shots. This means more playmaking, and I don't know if Fox or the team is up to the task. I think Grant needs to take the 12-15 footer, and he needs to develop an aggressive and effective drive. He doesn't take the ball to the basket. We need to feature Kelly in deep more, and Lars and Thorpe will need to develop some scoring ability. Shepherd seems to be able to score without making threes. We don't know what Bowser can do. They are listing Roberson as a Shooting Guard, so presumably he can shoot a bit. Alajiki's tape showed an ability to do lots of things, so he may be able to add some scoring. Don't know about Anyanwu. but I'd guess he would be a better scorer inside than Lars, Thorpe, and maybe Kuany.

As for Kuany, and for everyone really, this will be the first full summer that Fox and his staff have had to work the players hard in between seasons. And Fox has said that is the most important time for coaches to teach and give players the work to improve. For most players, the 3rd and 4th year is when players make a jump in their progress, but that is usually three full summers of work, and for many of these players it will be their first and only full season of summer work with the team. I hope Fox was right, and I hope he has some success this summer and this season, and can get the boo-birds off his back for a while. On the minus side, shooting is a tough thing to teach. Only a few players can learn to shoot when they are adults or almost adults. Good shooters are usually born not made. That is why the rest of the game, the playmaking, the defense, the rebounding is so important when you don't have great shooters. Open shots make for more scoring.

---

Kuany was 3 of 15 from three which is bad, but the year before he was 5 of 14 which is pretty good. The bottom line is 15 shots over 29 games is not a lot of shots. Even good shooters like to get in rhythm, so it is tough to conclude he is good or bad. Not sure he will play more as the guys that played ahead of him are all back, plus we add Anywanu. I'm not sure Fox would consider Kuany for the 3, he tends to follow convention.

The vast number of threes taken last year were by Betley and Bradley, who are of course gone. Someone will have to shoot in their place. Celestine is obvious. Who else remains a mystery, but this year I'd like to see the guys that are making a good percentage take more shots and the guys who aren't stop shooting so much.

---

I don't follow the logic. You say that Kuany does not have much of a sample with only 29 three point attempts in his career, and that is to small to judge whether he can shoot well enough. But then you say that it is obvious that Celestine can shoot threes well enough, but he has had the same career sample size as Kuany, 29 attempts. Celestine could just as easily come out this season and shoot .200, so we really don't know for sure about either player's ability yet. And it is true that shooters like to get in rhythm, but it is also true that good shooters are the ones who are ALLOWED to get in rhythm. If you are key starter playing 35 minutes like Bradley, you will get 6-9 attempts maybe, and will have a good chance to get in rhythm. Part-time players like Kuany, off the bench, will come in cold and if they miss one or two threes, they will usually get pulled from the game, unless they are needed more for other purposes.

I came off the bench most of my high school career. I was not a good athlete. I realized that if I got into a game, I would need to do something good or special to warrant the coach leaving me in the game. I could do one thing well, and that was shooting long range bombs. In those days, nobody guarded anyone beyond the perimeter, because even at 30 feet, it was still only a two-point shot. I practiced thousands of those shots. I was determined to make my first shot count, and most of the time I did, and I kept getting more playing time, until I was made a starter. I was scoring enough, that I started getting fouled a lot, so I also worked hard to make my free throws, and I shot those at over 90%. I rarely had no more than one or two FTAs in a game, so no chance to get in rhythm. What I am saying is that it is not as much a matter of getting in rhythm, it is more a matter of thousands of practice shots, leading to the confidence that you can make that first shot, and if you can make that first one, you can make more of them. For me it was desperation, because if I didn't make that first shot, I might not see the court again for days or weeks.

I like Celestine and Kuany shooting the three. Celestine, however, is a complete basketball player with lots of court experience, while Kuany is still a raw talent learning the game. As I remember, Kuany seemed to take most of his attempts from the corners. That is a more difficult shot than taking it from top of the key and left or right side. In the corner you need better vision or better concentration, because you don't have the backboard in your field of view. There may be fans on the far side moving in your line of sight to distract you. It is still a very makeable shot, but needs more game experience to perfect it.

Are you saying that Anyanwu is a three point shooter? If so, he might help, but bear in mind he won't be making as many buckets at Cal as he did in high school. He averaged 16 points last season. Jaylen Brown averaged 28 in high school, 14 at Cal. Ivan Rabb, 24 in high school, 12 at Cal. The D1 game is faster, played against better defenders, and better athletes than they played against in high school.

When you say Betley and Bradley "took the vast number of threes" you keep leaving Foreman out of the conversation. On a per 40 minute basis, Foreman was Cal's Champion Chucker, with 9.3 three point attempts, followed by Betley at 8.0 and Bradley way behind at 6.6. The only reason Betley had more total attempts than Foreman was that he played 200 more minutes than Foreman. Bradley played only 65 more minutes than Foreman.

---

Celestine provided he will be fully recovered from essentially a dislocated kneecap, will likely be the team's best 3 point shooter. Its a pure shot that has nice release, back spin and appropriate arc. Definitely needs to be fully healed to be able to finish at the rim once defenders crowd him. Have not seen Shepard yet, though reports from the players is that he is very good and can be versatile amongst the shooting guard, or back up the point. Again its been mostly individual skill work with limited scrimmaging.

---

I agree on Celestine, and hope for the best from Shepherd as well. I'm glad to hear that they are putting in the individual skill work that they missed last summer. I'd rather see more emphasis on that and working on plays, even simple two-man plays, which are essential to team basketball, than to see emphasis on scrimmaging. Scrimmaging does not teach much. It gets a team up to game speed, but it needs to be done sparingly. Much of the game is played in the head, getting prepared. And Cal has had enough players injured in scrimmages to make me think maybe we scrimmage too much. Tyrone Wallace took so many chances driving to the basket and getting caught up in the air and falling to the floor, but I think his only injury in 4 years may have been the one where he got injured in a scrimmage. Here are some Cal players who got injured at practice, and I may be wrong, but I assume it was in a scrimmage at practice: Ricky Kreklow, Paris Austin, Rod Benson, Martin Smith, Ayinde Ubaka, and Omar Wilkes. Justin Cobbs was injured in a summer league game.

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I'm pretty worried about this team, especially with two key players coming off injuries

hopefully one or two players surprise, and everyone gets better with a regular offseason and a year's improvement in strength and experience

---

Why worry? We can't do much worse than 12th place, which is where we finished last season.

Last year was disastrous, with the combination of complications and uncertainties over the Covid shutdowns which at least eliminated summer practice, and the key injuries to Bradley and the illness and long recovery for Anticevich. After Fox's first season, where Cal finished in 8th place, there still was some support for Fox and the team, as we saw a few bright spots. The biggest loss from that roster was Paris Austin, and we hoped Brown would fill his shoes. It was also unfortunate that Hyder was not allowed to join the team right away, and we started without him, and then he later was injured. Bowser had that horrific collision and fall, missed several games, and later seemed to play seldom and play tentatively when he did play. I look at last season as an anomaly, and see no reason we can not equal our 8th place finish of 2020, and maybe finish higher.

I am encouraged by the emergence of Celestine last season, and by the small improvement in several players. We lack quality bigs, but I expect us to go small most of the time, hopefully small and fast. I'm impressed by the video of all the newcomers, and expect them all to contribute, hopefully in a big way.

---

I expect we will go small and I expect we will go even slower. Small and slow but with little outside shooting. I think our defense will improve, but not enough to make up for the drop off on offense. We will definitely again contend for lowest scoring team in the nation (as we did last year).

I am eager to see the freshmen. Just like watching Celestine emerge was perhaps the highlight of last season, the chance that maybe one of the guys on the team emerges, even on a team that is losing games, will be one of the reasons to stay interested this year.

---

Fast basketball is a fan favorite, but it also leads to more turnovers and that usually contributes to the opponent's offense. If the freshmen get playing time, we will not be slower. Bradley was a good player, but not fast. And last season we were slow because our offense was one against five too much of the time. I avoid using the word "definitely" for anything, especially Cal basketball. I don't see a dropoff in offense at all. The three point shot is not the holy grail. I think we will make enough threes, but I really don't care. Most of the shot attempts taken by teams are two point attempts. We have players who can make those. So if we don't have talented three point shooters, then let there be twos. There are so many more types of two point shots and all we need is coaching to open spots and ways for players to shoot them. Tall order, but it has been done before by many teams in many seasons. There was basketball being played and played well before the three was invented. It is called teamwork, and if we don't have any key injuries, we will truly find out whether Fox can coach or not this season

So keep your mind focused on the freshmen, with an eye open for the improvement of the returnees, and forget about the wins. They will come or they won't, and there is nothing we can do about it.

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I'm pretty worried about this team, especially with two key players coming off injuries

hopefully one or two players surprise, and everyone gets better with a regular offseason and a year's improvement in strength and experience

---

Why worry? We can't do much worse than 12th place, which is where we finished last season.

Last year was disastrous, with the combination of complications and uncertainties over the Covid shutdowns which at least eliminated summer practice, and the key injuries to Bradley and the illness and long recovery for Anticevich. After Fox's first season, where Cal finished in 8th place, there still was some support for Fox and the team, as we saw a few bright spots. The biggest loss from that roster was Paris Austin, and we hoped Brown would fill his shoes. It was also unfortunate that Hyder was not allowed to join the team right away, and we started without him, and then he later was injured. Bowser had that horrific collision and fall, missed several games, and later seemed to play seldom and play tentatively when he did play. I look at last season as an anomaly, and see no reason we can not equal our 8th place finish of 2020, and maybe finish higher.

I am encouraged by the emergence of Celestine last season, and by the small improvement in several players. We lack quality bigs, but I expect us to go small most of the time, hopefully small and fast. I'm impressed by the video of all the newcomers, and expect them all to contribute, hopefully in a big way.

---

I expect we will go small and I expect we will go even slower. Small and slow but with little outside shooting. I think our defense will improve, but not enough to make up for the drop off on offense. We will definitely again contend for lowest scoring team in the nation (as we did last year).

I am eager to see the freshmen. Just like watching Celestine emerge was perhaps the highlight of last season, the chance that maybe one of the guys on the team emerges, even on a team that is losing games, will be one of the reasons to stay interested this year.

---

Fast basketball is a fan favorite, but it also leads to more turnovers and that usually contributes to the opponent's offense. If the freshmen get playing time, we will not be slower. Bradley was a good player, but not fast. And last season we were slow because our offense was one against five too much of the time. I avoid using the word "definitely" for anything, especially Cal basketball. I don't see a dropoff in offense at all. The three point shot is not the holy grail. I think we will make enough threes, but I really don't care. Most of the shot attempts taken by teams are two point attempts. We have players who can make those. So if we don't have talented three point shooters, then let there be twos. There are so many more types of two point shots and all we need is coaching to open spots and ways for players to shoot them. Tall order, but it has been done before by many teams in many seasons. There was basketball being played and played well before the three was invented. It is called teamwork, and if we don't have any key injuries, we will truly find out whether Fox can coach or not this season

So keep your mind focused on the freshmen, with an eye open for the improvement of the returnees, and forget about the wins. They will come or they won't, and there is nothing we can do about it.

---

I am not calling for a faster pace, not unless we want to extend pressure and can score fast breaks off of turnovers. I'd be surprised if we go that way.

We will have quicker players, but given our talent deficiency I believe Fox will want to play at an even more deliberate pace, intensify the defense to deny shots and push for even lower scoring games. That gives us a shot at winning on a lucky bounce.

The issue with lack of 3 pt shooting is the defense will be able to collapse and defend the basket. It will be more difficult for Kelly to score inside. There will be fewer driving lanes.

Watching the freshmen for signs of hope will be the most interesting thing, but it does sound from what we are hearing that they will not be getting a lot of minutes. As the last few years, Fox is trying to maximize wins now and he trusts his veterans.

>all we need is coaching to open spots and ways for players to shoot them ...

Coaches don't create shots, players create shots.

Plays work once, maybe twice, and then they're useless -- unless players can make them work with talent.

Yes, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but the difference is talent, not strategy. Blame Fox for the roster, but expecting him to conjure up a game's worth of open shots with screens and movement is asking for him to own a magic wand.

ClayK said:

---

>all we need is coaching to open spots and ways for players to shoot them ...

Coaches don't create shots, players create shots.

Plays work once, maybe twice, and then they're useless -- unless players can make them work with talent.

Yes, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but the difference is talent, not strategy. Blame Fox for the roster, but expecting him to conjure up a game's worth of open shots with screens and movement is asking for him to own a magic wand.

---

Monty in the first half of his time at Stanford created shots for spot up shooters who could not create their own shot. The key is he recruited dead-eye shooters to take that shot. We are largely lacking in that department.

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I'm pretty worried about this team, especially with two key players coming off injuries

hopefully one or two players surprise, and everyone gets better with a regular offseason and a year's improvement in strength and experience

---

Why worry? We can't do much worse than 12th place, which is where we finished last season.

Last year was disastrous, with the combination of complications and uncertainties over the Covid shutdowns which at least eliminated summer practice, and the key injuries to Bradley and the illness and long recovery for Anticevich. After Fox's first season, where Cal finished in 8th place, there still was some support for Fox and the team, as we saw a few bright spots. The biggest loss from that roster was Paris Austin, and we hoped Brown would fill his shoes. It was also unfortunate that Hyder was not allowed to join the team right away, and we started without him, and then he later was injured. Bowser had that horrific collision and fall, missed several games, and later seemed to play seldom and play tentatively when he did play. I look at last season as an anomaly, and see no reason we can not equal our 8th place finish of 2020, and maybe finish higher.

I am encouraged by the emergence of Celestine last season, and by the small improvement in several players. We lack quality bigs, but I expect us to go small most of the time, hopefully small and fast. I'm impressed by the video of all the newcomers, and expect them all to contribute, hopefully in a big way.

---

I expect we will go small and I expect we will go even slower. Small and slow but with little outside shooting. I think our defense will improve, but not enough to make up for the drop off on offense. We will definitely again contend for lowest scoring team in the nation (as we did last year).

I am eager to see the freshmen. Just like watching Celestine emerge was perhaps the highlight of last season, the chance that maybe one of the guys on the team emerges, even on a team that is losing games, will be one of the reasons to stay interested this year.

---

Why are you so sure that Cal's three point output will drop so much?

Last season, Bradley, Betley, and Foreman took most of the threes for Cal, followed by Grant, Celestine and Brown. Betley's success rate dropped significantly in the 2nd half of the season. We still have Foreman, Grant, Celestine and Brown. Kuany shot well in a small sample of threes as a freshman, and he is still on the team. Grant will be asked to take more shots. Celestine and Brown, each with a smaller sample of three point attempts, had the two highest shooting percentages on the team, higher than Bradley's. They will be asked to take more three point attempts, especially Celestine. They will all be raring to go. So really all Cal lost was Bradley and of course, Betley's good shooting in the first half of the season. Bradley's loss will hurt the output, but not having Bradley might cause Cal to play more as a team, rather than depend on him to not only make most of the threes, but do most of the scoring at the rim and very occasionally make an assist to an open teammate. He often WAS the offense, and losing him may allow others to shine. One thing I'll miss is his ability to hit threes in the clutch. Foreman made one or two of those last season.

Hyder's form looks OK shooting the three, but he had poor results, and I wonder if the stress fracture was affecting his shot, or if he has now recovered. Do we know if Anyanwu or Roberson has three point ability? Alajiki's tape indicates he may have the range.

How many three point shooters do you think a team needs? Monty won the PAC12 in 2020 with four of them. He had 6 of them in 2014 and did not win it, and Cuonzo had even more of them in 2016 and did not win it.

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I'm pretty worried about this team, especially with two key players coming off injuries

hopefully one or two players surprise, and everyone gets better with a regular offseason and a year's improvement in strength and experience

---

Why worry? We can't do much worse than 12th place, which is where we finished last season.

Last year was disastrous, with the combination of complications and uncertainties over the Covid shutdowns which at least eliminated summer practice, and the key injuries to Bradley and the illness and long recovery for Anticevich. After Fox's first season, where Cal finished in 8th place, there still was some support for Fox and the team, as we saw a few bright spots. The biggest loss from that roster was Paris Austin, and we hoped Brown would fill his shoes. It was also unfortunate that Hyder was not allowed to join the team right away, and we started without him, and then he later was injured. Bowser had that horrific collision and fall, missed several games, and later seemed to play seldom and play tentatively when he did play. I look at last season as an anomaly, and see no reason we can not equal our 8th place finish of 2020, and maybe finish higher.

I am encouraged by the emergence of Celestine last season, and by the small improvement in several players. We lack quality bigs, but I expect us to go small most of the time, hopefully small and fast. I'm impressed by the video of all the newcomers, and expect them all to contribute, hopefully in a big way.

---

I expect we will go small and I expect we will go even slower. Small and slow but with little outside shooting. I think our defense will improve, but not enough to make up for the drop off on offense. We will definitely again contend for lowest scoring team in the nation (as we did last year).

I am eager to see the freshmen. Just like watching Celestine emerge was perhaps the highlight of last season, the chance that maybe one of the guys on the team emerges, even on a team that is losing games, will be one of the reasons to stay interested this year.

---

Why are you so sure that Cal's three point output will drop so much?

Last season, Bradley, Betley, and Foreman took most of the threes for Cal, followed by Grant, Celestine and Brown. Betley's success rate dropped significantly in the 2nd half of the season. We still have Foreman, Grant, Celestine and Brown. Kuany shot well in a small sample of threes as a freshman, and he is still on the team. Grant will be asked to take more shots. Celestine and Brown, each with a smaller sample of three point attempts, had the two highest shooting percentages on the team, higher than Bradley's. They will be asked to take more three point attempts, especially Celestine. They will all be raring to go. So really all Cal lost was Bradley and of course, Betley's good shooting in the first half of the season. Bradley's loss will hurt the output, but not having Bradley might cause Cal to play more as a team, rather than depend on him to not only make most of the threes, but do most of the scoring at the rim and very occasionally make an assist to an open teammate. He often WAS the offense, and losing him may allow others to shine. One thing I'll miss is his ability to hit threes in the clutch. Foreman made one or two of those last season.

Hyder's form looks OK shooting the three, but he had poor results, and I wonder if the stress fracture was affecting his shot, or if he has now recovered. Do we know if Anyanwu or Roberson has three point ability? Alajiki's tape indicates he may have the range.

How many three point shooters do you think a team needs? Monty won the PAC12 in 2020 with four of them. He had 6 of them in 2014 and did not win it, and Cuonzo had even more of them in 2016 and did not win it.

---

Cal was 11th in the PAC-12 last year in 3pt % at .328

I am not predicting that goes up or down.

We lost two volume 3pt shooters in Betley and Bradley. From what our insiders are telling us it is likely they will be replaced by Shepard and more Celestine (assuming he is healthy). As you pointed out, Celestine did not shoot many threes last year, but he hit a good percentage and looked good. Shepard has played a lot of basketball and never hit a good percentage from 3, and as you point out that was at a lower level.

Sure, Foreman and Hyder could get significantly better. Anything is possible. One or more of the freshmen could surprise.

We were the worst team in the conference last year and our best player left, with none of the freshmen expected to make a major impact. Meanwhile our competitors have significantly improved. Any rational, objective prediction is that we will be the worst team by a larger margin. However, fandom isn't rational, we can always hope, and I hope you are right.

ClayK said:

---

>all we need is coaching to open spots and ways for players to shoot them ...

Coaches don't create shots, players create shots.

Plays work once, maybe twice, and then they're useless -- unless players can make them work with talent.

Yes, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but the difference is talent, not strategy. Blame Fox for the roster, but expecting him to conjure up a game's worth of open shots with screens and movement is asking for him to own a magic wand.

---

A post as ridiculous as this is going to engender a longer condescending response, so I want to apologize to you in advance for the length and any condescension on my part.

You are right that players created shots, because obviously they are the ones on the floor playing the game, while the coach sits on the sidelines. And one of the ways they create a shot is by moving without the ball to an open unguarded spot on the floor.

Have you been a Cal fan long enough to remember Jordan Mathews? He was a very good perimeter shooter, who had very little in the way of other skills. He could not create his own shot. He shot when he was open, or he stepped behind a screen set for him by a teammate. A shot by Jordan Mathews was created either by him getting to an open spot on the floor, or by a teammate (or 2) setting a screen for him. Jordan could not score without the ball, but he could be creative in finding open areas, and then catch an assist pass from a teammate so he could then shoot the shot.

Jordan Mathews' shots were mostly orchestrated by his coach. I would bet that the team often practiced simple plays designed to get Jordan a good look at a shot, making it a higher percentage shot for him, than if he was to try and create the shot himself off the bounce.

I think it is more accurate to say that players create shots, either off the bounce, or by moving to an area where they are likely to have an open shot. But it takes a PLAY to make the basket happen. The player's teammate who has the ball has to know or notice on the fly that the player is wide open and get him the ball, so he can shoot it.

Many shots are created in a game which depend on plays. The two-man play is the simplest, like the Give and Go, or the Pick and Roll, or the Backdoor cut. These are the basis of team basketball, and requires at least two players to execute it. If the shot is successful, an assist is awarded to the player who made the final pass. Often there are more than one pass made during a play. Last season, Cal made 661 field goals on 346 assists. So more than half of Cal's baskets were the result of some kind of play, many designed by the coaches and some by players reacting and thinking on the fly. So that was just Cal, which was not very good at running plays, averaging 11.8 assists a game. Compare that to Gonzaga (which played 32 games vs Cal's 29) with 1079 field goals on 601 assists, or 18.8 assists per game. So with much better basketball players capable of creating their own shot, Gonzaga still used team plays to score more than half their baskets. 56% of the time, vs Cal's 52%.

Cal clearly needs better players who can create their own shot, but they also need to run plays more often to score, especially when their players are not so good at creating and making good shots by themselves. For example, Foreman shot a lower percentage at Cal, because he ran into bigger more athletic defenders in the PAC12, and Cal needs to run screens for him to get good open looks for his threes, much like they did for Mathews.

To say plays only work once or twice overlooks the thousands of coaches and thousands of good point guards who have had long careers running the same plays over and over, and beat you to death with them. Mike Montgomery the coach, and Jason Kidd or KJ come to mind. Remember how Crabbe, Jorge, and Cobbs used to curl behind a double screen, catch a pass and then shoot and make a 12 footer? No team ever stopped it. Remember that little play that Monty sometimes used to get Bak Bak open for a 12 footer on the left sideline? Opponents had to have seen that on film, but somehow he was always open in that exact spot, and they never got anywhere near blocking his shot, and he always seemed to make it. Plays are not strategy, they are tactics, a tactic to use in a game. Strategy is in deciding how you will attack a particular team, and which of your plays will you use against which defense and which defenders.

My strategy for the upcoming season would be to have Grant, Brown, Celestine and Kuany take more three point shots, set screens for Foreman's threes, and quickly evaluate the newcomers as to who you could trust to shoot threes, and if it is no one, then develop plays to work in the lane or near the basket, along with plays to make a mid range shot. Kelly and Lars need to work on a new move and shot. I would increase the number of two point attempts. Not "conjure up a game's worth of open shots with screens and movement." Only enough 2 point baskets to make up for the threes that calumnus thinks we won't make this season. Players will get doubled near the basket, which is made to order for interior passing. I would drill into their heads, "If you get doubled, one of your teammates is open. Be sure you find him and get him the ball." We should practice 10-15 footers, because that is where the high percentage openings will be.

The screens we set are not well executed and never improved.

SFCityBear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

>all we need is coaching to open spots and ways for players to shoot them ...

Coaches don't create shots, players create shots.

Plays work once, maybe twice, and then they're useless -- unless players can make them work with talent.

Yes, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but the difference is talent, not strategy. Blame Fox for the roster, but expecting him to conjure up a game's worth of open shots with screens and movement is asking for him to own a magic wand.

---

A post as ridiculous as this is going to engender a longer condescending response, so I want to apologize to you in advance for the length and any condescension on my part.

You are right that players created shots, because obviously they are the ones on the floor playing the game, while the coach sits on the sidelines. And one of the ways they create a shot is by moving without the ball to an open unguarded spot on the floor.

Have you been a Cal fan long enough to remember Jordan Mathews? He was a very good perimeter shooter, who had very little in the way of other skills. He could not create his own shot. He shot when he was open, or he stepped behind a screen set for him by a teammate. A shot by Jordan Mathews was created either by him getting to an open spot on the floor, or by a teammate (or 2) setting a screen for him. Jordan could not score without the ball, but he could be creative in finding open areas, and then catch an assist pass from a teammate so he could then shoot the shot.

Jordan Mathews' shots were mostly orchestrated by his coach. I would bet that the team often practiced simple plays designed to get Jordan a good look at a shot, making it a higher percentage shot for him, than if he was to try and create the shot himself off the bounce.

I think it is more accurate to say that players create shots, either off the bounce, or by moving to an area where they are likely to have an open shot. But it takes a PLAY to make the basket happen. The player's teammate who has the ball has to know or notice on the fly that the player is wide open and get him the ball, so he can shoot it.

Many shots are created in a game which depend on plays. The two-man play is the simplest, like the Give and Go, or the Pick and Roll, or the Backdoor cut. These are the basis of team basketball, and requires at least two players to execute it. If the shot is successful, an assist is awarded to the player who made the final pass. Often there are more than one pass made during a play. Last season, Cal made 661 field goals on 346 assists. So more than half of Cal's baskets were the result of some kind of play, many designed by the coaches and some by players reacting and thinking on the fly. So that was just Cal, which was not very good at running plays, averaging 11.8 assists a game. Compare that to Gonzaga (which played 32 games vs Cal's 29) with 1079 field goals on 601 assists, or 18.8 assists per game. So with much better basketball players capable of creating their own shot, Gonzaga still used team plays to score more than half their baskets. 56% of the time, vs Cal's 52%.

Cal clearly needs better players who can create their own shot, but they also need to run plays more often to score, especially when their players are not so good at creating and making good shots by themselves. For example, Foreman shot a lower percentage at Cal, because he ran into bigger more athletic defenders in the PAC12, and Cal needs to run screens for him to get good open looks for his threes, much like they did for Mathews.

To say plays only work once or twice overlooks the thousands of coaches and thousands of good point guards who have had long careers running the same plays over and over, and beat you to death with them. Mike Montgomery the coach, and Jason Kidd or KJ come to mind. Remember how Crabbe, Jorge, and Cobbs used to curl behind a double screen, catch a pass and then shoot and make a 12 footer? No team ever stopped it. Remember that little play that Monty sometimes used to get Bak Bak open for a 12 footer on the left sideline? Opponents had to have seen that on film, but somehow he was always open in that exact spot, and they never got anywhere near blocking his shot, and he always seemed to make it. Plays are not strategy, they are tactics, a tactic to use in a game. Strategy is in deciding how you will attack a particular team, and which of your plays will you use against which defense and which defenders.

My strategy for the upcoming season would be to have Grant, Brown, Celestine and Kuany take more three point shots, set screens for Foreman's threes, and quickly evaluate the newcomers as to who you could trust to shoot threes, and if it is no one, then develop plays to work in the lane or near the basket, along with plays to make a mid range shot. Kelly and Lars need to work on a new move and shot. I would increase the number of two point attempts. Not "conjure up a game's worth of open shots with screens and movement." Only enough 2 point baskets to make up for the threes that calumnus thinks we won't make this season. Players will get doubled near the basket, which is made to order for interior passing. I would drill into their heads, "If you get doubled, one of your teammates is open. Be sure you find him and get him the ball." We should practice 10-15 footers, because that is where the high percentage openings will be.

---

Good post, not sure why you called me out while going on to essentially agree with me.

Good post ...

So I would agree that certain actions produce results, the pick-and-roll being the most prominent, so it's the one I'll focus on -- though obviously there are others.

On offense, I would use the pick-and-roll with particular pairs of players (Malone and Stockton, say) because their individual skills create problems the defense cannot solve. In the pick-and-roll, the on-ball defender can go under the screen, but if the ballhandler can shoot the jumper in the shadow of the screen, that is not an option.

That forces the switch. There are several defensive options when the switch is made. Hedge-and-recover is the most common now, but with the right personnel, the switcher can focus on simply flattening out the path of the ballhandler to deny the direct cut to the basket while still maintaining enough contact to stop a jump shot. A relatively agile taller player can use his height to contest jumpers smaller players can't.

However, without the right talent, the pick-and-roll will not work. If the ballhandler can't make shots in the shadow of the screen, the defender will go under. If the ballhandler can't deliver a good pass to the roller, then that action is worthless. If the weakside wing is not an offensive threat, the weakside wing defender drops into the lane, denying the roll. If the strongside wing is not an offensive threat, the strongside wing defender can disrupt the action as well.

All that said (and my apologies for the long reply, and I don't mean to be condescending, and you certainly weren't), "plays" generally involve a set motion, a kind of script. That's what I was referring to in terms of working only once or twice, because defenses will adjust quickly -- and again, they will help off of weaker offensive players. (If you have four or five good offensive players, then help is more problematic, but that's a function of talent, not schemes.)

In the end, I have to enough enough talent to make any action, or any play, work consistently. I've had some success as a high school head coach, and I almost never ran plays, except for the pick-and-roll. Other coaches have great success running lots of set plays. I had some really bad teams, and neither the pick-and-roll or set plays worked well because the other teams were better. I've seen coaches run lots of set plays and fail miserably, even though the plays were well-designed, because you have to make the shot, and you also have to be able to deter help with other threats.

Now it is possible to piece together an effective offense by having players with one or two offensive skills fit together in a motion. If you have three-point shooters with limited mobility and a guard who can penetrate and pass effectively, you can make something work, or if you have a dominant post player with two or three shooters, you can just keep throwing him the ball on the block and the defense has limited ways to help.

To put it another way, successful college basketball coaches are not known for Xs and Os, they are known for acquiring talent. Steve Kerr is generally considered a very good NBA coach -- when he had talent, he won titles; when he didn't, he won 19 games. Were his Xs and Os any different? Could he or one of the many people on his staff have drawn up better plays and produced titles without talent? Can Mark Fox do what NBA coaching staffs cannot? Was John Calipari a strategic genius?

Last thing: I had a very good shooter at Campolindo named Annie Ward (now a coach at Butte College). One game she made eight threes, and we won by a lot. People commented on how good our offense was. The next game she was one-for-12 or something and we struggled to win. People wondered what kind of offense I was running.

ClayK said:

---

Good post ...

So I would agree that certain actions produce results, the pick-and-roll being the most prominent, so it's the one I'll focus on -- though obviously there are others.

On offense, I would use the pick-and-roll with particular pairs of players (Malone and Stockton, say) because their individual skills create problems the defense cannot solve. In the pick-and-roll, the on-ball defender can go under the screen, but if the ballhandler can shoot the jumper in the shadow of the screen, that is not an option.

That forces the switch. There are several defensive options when the switch is made. Hedge-and-recover is the most common now, but with the right personnel, the switcher can focus on simply flattening out the path of the ballhandler to deny the direct cut to the basket while still maintaining enough contact to stop a jump shot. A relatively agile taller player can use his height to contest jumpers smaller players can't.

However, without the right talent, the pick-and-roll will not work. If the ballhandler can't make shots in the shadow of the screen, the defender will go under. If the ballhandler can't deliver a good pass to the roller, then that action is worthless. If the weakside wing is not an offensive threat, the weakside wing defender drops into the lane, denying the roll. If the strongside wing is not an offensive threat, the strongside wing defender can disrupt the action as well.

All that said (and my apologies for the long reply, and I don't mean to be condescending, and you certainly weren't), "plays" generally involve a set motion, a kind of script. That's what I was referring to in terms of working only once or twice, because defenses will adjust quickly -- and again, they will help off of weaker offensive players. (If you have four or five good offensive players, then help is more problematic, but that's a function of talent, not schemes.)

In the end, I have to enough enough talent to make any action, or any play, work consistently. I've had some success as a high school head coach, and I almost never ran plays, except for the pick-and-roll. Other coaches have great success running lots of set plays. I had some really bad teams, and neither the pick-and-roll or set plays worked well because the other teams were better. I've seen coaches run lots of set plays and fail miserably, even though the plays were well-designed, because you have to make the shot, and you also have to be able to deter help with other threats.

Now it is possible to piece together an effective offense by having players with one or two offensive skills fit together in a motion. If you have three-point shooters with limited mobility and a guard who can penetrate and pass effectively, you can make something work, or if you have a dominant post player with two or three shooters, you can just keep throwing him the ball on the block and the defense has limited ways to help.

To put it another way, successful college basketball coaches are not known for Xs and Os, they are known for acquiring talent. Steve Kerr is generally considered a very good NBA coach -- when he had talent, he won titles; when he didn't, he won 19 games. Were his Xs and Os any different? Could he or one of the many people on his staff have drawn up better plays and produced titles without talent? Can Mark Fox do what NBA coaching staffs cannot? Was John Calipari a strategic genius?

Last thing: I had a very good shooter at Campolindo named Annie Ward (now a coach at Butte College). One game she made eight threes, and we won by a lot. People commented on how good our offense was. The next game she was one-for-12 or something and we struggled to win. People wondered what kind of offense I was running.

---

Another good post - and Annie was a great shooter!

The range of quality in coaching X's and O's is actually pretty narrow. A few are exceptional and some seem to be inept, but by and large coaching tactics and strategy is pretty darn good all around. Talent on the other hand has a much wider range for individuals - not to mention body types and skill sets. On top of that, talent is not distributed evenly.

Its simple to see that talent is MUCH more of a differentiator than coaching. Coaching makes a difference when the talent is comparable, otherwise not so much.

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

>all we need is coaching to open spots and ways for players to shoot them ...

Coaches don't create shots, players create shots.

Plays work once, maybe twice, and then they're useless -- unless players can make them work with talent.

Yes, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but the difference is talent, not strategy. Blame Fox for the roster, but expecting him to conjure up a game's worth of open shots with screens and movement is asking for him to own a magic wand.

---

A post as ridiculous as this is going to engender a longer condescending response, so I want to apologize to you in advance for the length and any condescension on my part.

You are right that players created shots, because obviously they are the ones on the floor playing the game, while the coach sits on the sidelines. And one of the ways they create a shot is by moving without the ball to an open unguarded spot on the floor.

Have you been a Cal fan long enough to remember Jordan Mathews? He was a very good perimeter shooter, who had very little in the way of other skills. He could not create his own shot. He shot when he was open, or he stepped behind a screen set for him by a teammate. A shot by Jordan Mathews was created either by him getting to an open spot on the floor, or by a teammate (or 2) setting a screen for him. Jordan could not score without the ball, but he could be creative in finding open areas, and then catch an assist pass from a teammate so he could then shoot the shot.

Jordan Mathews' shots were mostly orchestrated by his coach. I would bet that the team often practiced simple plays designed to get Jordan a good look at a shot, making it a higher percentage shot for him, than if he was to try and create the shot himself off the bounce.

I think it is more accurate to say that players create shots, either off the bounce, or by moving to an area where they are likely to have an open shot. But it takes a PLAY to make the basket happen. The player's teammate who has the ball has to know or notice on the fly that the player is wide open and get him the ball, so he can shoot it.

Many shots are created in a game which depend on plays. The two-man play is the simplest, like the Give and Go, or the Pick and Roll, or the Backdoor cut. These are the basis of team basketball, and requires at least two players to execute it. If the shot is successful, an assist is awarded to the player who made the final pass. Often there are more than one pass made during a play. Last season, Cal made 661 field goals on 346 assists. So more than half of Cal's baskets were the result of some kind of play, many designed by the coaches and some by players reacting and thinking on the fly. So that was just Cal, which was not very good at running plays, averaging 11.8 assists a game. Compare that to Gonzaga (which played 32 games vs Cal's 29) with 1079 field goals on 601 assists, or 18.8 assists per game. So with much better basketball players capable of creating their own shot, Gonzaga still used team plays to score more than half their baskets. 56% of the time, vs Cal's 52%.

Cal clearly needs better players who can create their own shot, but they also need to run plays more often to score, especially when their players are not so good at creating and making good shots by themselves. For example, Foreman shot a lower percentage at Cal, because he ran into bigger more athletic defenders in the PAC12, and Cal needs to run screens for him to get good open looks for his threes, much like they did for Mathews.

To say plays only work once or twice overlooks the thousands of coaches and thousands of good point guards who have had long careers running the same plays over and over, and beat you to death with them. Mike Montgomery the coach, and Jason Kidd or KJ come to mind. Remember how Crabbe, Jorge, and Cobbs used to curl behind a double screen, catch a pass and then shoot and make a 12 footer? No team ever stopped it. Remember that little play that Monty sometimes used to get Bak Bak open for a 12 footer on the left sideline? Opponents had to have seen that on film, but somehow he was always open in that exact spot, and they never got anywhere near blocking his shot, and he always seemed to make it. Plays are not strategy, they are tactics, a tactic to use in a game. Strategy is in deciding how you will attack a particular team, and which of your plays will you use against which defense and which defenders.

My strategy for the upcoming season would be to have Grant, Brown, Celestine and Kuany take more three point shots, set screens for Foreman's threes, and quickly evaluate the newcomers as to who you could trust to shoot threes, and if it is no one, then develop plays to work in the lane or near the basket, along with plays to make a mid range shot. Kelly and Lars need to work on a new move and shot. I would increase the number of two point attempts. Not "conjure up a game's worth of open shots with screens and movement." Only enough 2 point baskets to make up for the threes that calumnus thinks we won't make this season. Players will get doubled near the basket, which is made to order for interior passing. I would drill into their heads, "If you get doubled, one of your teammates is open. Be sure you find him and get him the ball." We should practice 10-15 footers, because that is where the high percentage openings will be.

---

Good post, not sure why you called me out while going on to essentially agree with me.

---

Thanks. I am not sure why you think I called you out or how I agreed with you. I tried to give you credit for the prediction that Cal would make less threes this season. I don't agree or disagree with it. I am mostly here to write about actual problems with the basketball play at Cal, and solutions. I try not to make predictions. I don't even trust recruit evaluations more than 40% of the time, and I think much of what happens this season might depend on the new players. I am not competent to say what Cal's players, coaches or team will be like this season and what their results will be, without having seen the 4 new players, and without seeing whether the players injured last year will have recovered, and if any players have improved enough to make us much better. I will be interested in what the coaches will have been able to achieve working with the players over the summer, and the plays they will install in the fall. I am interested to see if Fox coaches any better this season, on both ends of the floor. There is too much I don't know to be able to say we won't make as many threes. I just hope we can run plays better than we did last season, either 3 point or 2 point. In any case, I did not mean any offense.

ClayK said:

---

Good post ...

So I would agree that certain actions produce results, the pick-and-roll being the most prominent, so it's the one I'll focus on -- though obviously there are others.

On offense, I would use the pick-and-roll with particular pairs of players (Malone and Stockton, say) because their individual skills create problems the defense cannot solve. In the pick-and-roll, the on-ball defender can go under the screen, but if the ballhandler can shoot the jumper in the shadow of the screen, that is not an option.

That forces the switch. There are several defensive options when the switch is made. Hedge-and-recover is the most common now, but with the right personnel, the switcher can focus on simply flattening out the path of the ballhandler to deny the direct cut to the basket while still maintaining enough contact to stop a jump shot. A relatively agile taller player can use his height to contest jumpers smaller players can't.

However, without the right talent, the pick-and-roll will not work. If the ballhandler can't make shots in the shadow of the screen, the defender will go under. If the ballhandler can't deliver a good pass to the roller, then that action is worthless. If the weakside wing is not an offensive threat, the weakside wing defender drops into the lane, denying the roll. If the strongside wing is not an offensive threat, the strongside wing defender can disrupt the action as well.

All that said (and my apologies for the long reply, and I don't mean to be condescending, and you certainly weren't), "plays" generally involve a set motion, a kind of script. That's what I was referring to in terms of working only once or twice, because defenses will adjust quickly -- and again, they will help off of weaker offensive players. (If you have four or five good offensive players, then help is more problematic, but that's a function of talent, not schemes.)

In the end, I have to enough enough talent to make any action, or any play, work consistently. I've had some success as a high school head coach, and I almost never ran plays, except for the pick-and-roll. Other coaches have great success running lots of set plays. I had some really bad teams, and neither the pick-and-roll or set plays worked well because the other teams were better. I've seen coaches run lots of set plays and fail miserably, even though the plays were well-designed, because you have to make the shot, and you also have to be able to deter help with other threats.

Now it is possible to piece together an effective offense by having players with one or two offensive skills fit together in a motion. If you have three-point shooters with limited mobility and a guard who can penetrate and pass effectively, you can make something work, or if you have a dominant post player with two or three shooters, you can just keep throwing him the ball on the block and the defense has limited ways to help.

To put it another way, successful college basketball coaches are not known for Xs and Os, they are known for acquiring talent. Steve Kerr is generally considered a very good NBA coach -- when he had talent, he won titles; when he didn't, he won 19 games. Were his Xs and Os any different? Could he or one of the many people on his staff have drawn up better plays and produced titles without talent? Can Mark Fox do what NBA coaching staffs cannot? Was John Calipari a strategic genius?

Last thing: I had a very good shooter at Campolindo named Annie Ward (now a coach at Butte College). One game she made eight threes, and we won by a lot. People commented on how good our offense was. The next game she was one-for-12 or something and we struggled to win. People wondered what kind of offense I was running.

---

Develop the talent you have and play a system that maximizes your scoring efficiency. Play defense sets/rotations that minimizes the opponents efficiency. So its more of a combination of factors with talent certainly key. Mike M, at the college level was brilliant at being efficient and maximizing his varying talent. Doc at Pinewood whom you know is an amazing skills development coach, with optimum fundamentals enforced. Cronin is proving that excellent coaching can raise very good talent to a top ten ranking level (he reworked the team's defensive principals and they have steadily improved over the past 2 seasons down the stretch)

4thGenCal said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Good post ...

So I would agree that certain actions produce results, the pick-and-roll being the most prominent, so it's the one I'll focus on -- though obviously there are others.

On offense, I would use the pick-and-roll with particular pairs of players (Malone and Stockton, say) because their individual skills create problems the defense cannot solve. In the pick-and-roll, the on-ball defender can go under the screen, but if the ballhandler can shoot the jumper in the shadow of the screen, that is not an option.

That forces the switch. There are several defensive options when the switch is made. Hedge-and-recover is the most common now, but with the right personnel, the switcher can focus on simply flattening out the path of the ballhandler to deny the direct cut to the basket while still maintaining enough contact to stop a jump shot. A relatively agile taller player can use his height to contest jumpers smaller players can't.

However, without the right talent, the pick-and-roll will not work. If the ballhandler can't make shots in the shadow of the screen, the defender will go under. If the ballhandler can't deliver a good pass to the roller, then that action is worthless. If the weakside wing is not an offensive threat, the weakside wing defender drops into the lane, denying the roll. If the strongside wing is not an offensive threat, the strongside wing defender can disrupt the action as well.

All that said (and my apologies for the long reply, and I don't mean to be condescending, and you certainly weren't), "plays" generally involve a set motion, a kind of script. That's what I was referring to in terms of working only once or twice, because defenses will adjust quickly -- and again, they will help off of weaker offensive players. (If you have four or five good offensive players, then help is more problematic, but that's a function of talent, not schemes.)

In the end, I have to enough enough talent to make any action, or any play, work consistently. I've had some success as a high school head coach, and I almost never ran plays, except for the pick-and-roll. Other coaches have great success running lots of set plays. I had some really bad teams, and neither the pick-and-roll or set plays worked well because the other teams were better. I've seen coaches run lots of set plays and fail miserably, even though the plays were well-designed, because you have to make the shot, and you also have to be able to deter help with other threats.

Now it is possible to piece together an effective offense by having players with one or two offensive skills fit together in a motion. If you have three-point shooters with limited mobility and a guard who can penetrate and pass effectively, you can make something work, or if you have a dominant post player with two or three shooters, you can just keep throwing him the ball on the block and the defense has limited ways to help.

To put it another way, successful college basketball coaches are not known for Xs and Os, they are known for acquiring talent. Steve Kerr is generally considered a very good NBA coach -- when he had talent, he won titles; when he didn't, he won 19 games. Were his Xs and Os any different? Could he or one of the many people on his staff have drawn up better plays and produced titles without talent? Can Mark Fox do what NBA coaching staffs cannot? Was John Calipari a strategic genius?

Last thing: I had a very good shooter at Campolindo named Annie Ward (now a coach at Butte College). One game she made eight threes, and we won by a lot. People commented on how good our offense was. The next game she was one-for-12 or something and we struggled to win. People wondered what kind of offense I was running.

---

Develop the talent you have and play a system that maximizes your scoring efficiency. Play defense sets/rotations that minimizes the opponents efficiency. So its more of a combination of factors with talent certainly key. Mike M, at the college level was brilliant at being efficient and maximizing his varying talent. Doc at Pinewood whom you know is an amazing skills development coach, with optimum fundamentals enforced. Cronin is proving that excellent coaching can raise very good talent to a top ten ranking level (he reworked the team's defensive principals and they have steadily improved over the past 2 seasons down the stretch)

---

Talent combined with X & O's wins! Develop your players to be successful. Skill wins, cohesion wins, effort wins at all level of basketball. In other words, skilled teams that play hard and play with cognition can be successful. Look at Japan womens team in the Olympics they played extremely Hard and they have bb skills - silver medalist and they were not tall or long. Coaches separate themselves from others by getting their players to buy in to the team approach, excel at the system being taught, and are able to develop the individual players skills.

Clay,

Great breakdown of the pick and roll. You obviously know basketball

But we've had this debate about "plays" before

"Plays" are simply how some people describe X&Os, but they really refer to plays (e.g. out of bounds play), sets, motions and overall schemes/strategies

And these X&Os combined with other factors such as motivation, development, etc make up the non-recruiting aspects of coaching

Two great examples of good coaching making a huge difference were provided by 4thGen

Let me jump onto his Cronin example. To any objective eye, UCLA has had talent to blow Cal off the court the last 4 years, yet they rarely did

Why was that?

Despite UCLA's top talent, they've under performed

It wasn't until the second half of Cronin's second season that UCLA played up to their talent. His coaching has transformed that talent (and unfortunately I no longer think we can pull off those upsets)

Of course talent is the majority of the basketball success formula, but coaching matters a lot

oskidunker said:

---

The screens we set are not well executed and never improved.

---

You got that right!
How many times did the screener set at an angle that was useless to the ball handler?
How many times did the ball handler leave so much space that the defender easily went over the screen?
How many times did the screener roll to the hoop with his back to the ball handler, eliminating the chance of receiving a pass?
How many times did the screener roll to the hoop before the ball handler could even use the screen?

I know pick-and-rolls aren't played the same way they were 40 years ago, but it's easy to recognize when they work and when they don't.

calumnus said:

---

ClayK said:

---

>all we need is coaching to open spots and ways for players to shoot them ...

Coaches don't create shots, players create shots.

Plays work once, maybe twice, and then they're useless -- unless players can make them work with talent.

Yes, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but the difference is talent, not strategy. Blame Fox for the roster, but expecting him to conjure up a game's worth of open shots with screens and movement is asking for him to own a magic wand.

---

Monty in the first half of his time at Stanford created shots for spot up shooters who could not create their own shot. The key is he recruited dead-eye shooters to take that shot. We are largely lacking in that department.

---

IIRC but it has been a while a critical aspect of Monty's team was drive and kick PG. That is another thing that Brown lacks. Face it guys we are grabbing at the smallest of straws ;-)

1) Making the pick-and-roll screen is primarily dependent on the ballhandler, and if the ballhandler is not quick, athletic or strong enough to move his defender into the screen at the correct angle, the pick-and-roll will not work.

Yes, the angle of the screens make a difference, and so does the timing, but it's not brain surgery, and it seems unlikely to me that it's not being taught properly.

2) Drive-and-kick, one of the key components of the modern offense, is again dependent on the ballhandler have the physical ability to break down the defender off the dribble and be a threat at the rim.

Dribble Drive Motion, which is a popular offense on the girls' side, works very well when you have three or four kids who can break defenders down off the dribble -- but then again, any offense will work if you have three or four kids who can break defenders down off the dribble.

And vice versa ...

ClayK said:

---

1) Making the pick-and-roll screen is primarily dependent on the ballhandler, and if the ballhandler is not quick, athletic or strong enough to move his defender into the screen at the correct angle, the pick-and-roll will not work.

Yes, the angle of the screens make a difference, and so does the timing, but it's not brain surgery, and it seems unlikely to me that it's not being taught properly.

2) Drive-and-kick, one of the key components of the modern offense, is again dependent on the ballhandler have the physical ability to break down the defender off the dribble and be a threat at the rim.

Dribble Drive Motion, which is a popular offense on the girls' side, works very well when you have three or four kids who can break defenders down off the dribble -- but then again, any offense will work if you have three or four kids who can break defenders down off the dribble.

And vice versa ...

---

Good points. In addition, as defenders frequently overplayed Cal's wings, why didn't a Cal player ever go backdoor? It may not be part of an overall offensive strategy, but it's certainly an effective way of making that defender back off a step.

bearchamp said:

---

If we assume that the players are being taught to pick and roll, etc., the failure in execution is still a coaching issue. Good basketball isn't like Arthur Murray dance studio: set plays are very limiting. Players need to be taught to recognize situations and move naturally to take advantage of those situations. Cal has a number of players who need to develop their individual skills, but even more so, need to gain understanding and recognition of the game. THAT, is where good coaching makes a huge difference.

---

A good point, but the hardest thing to teach is understanding and recognition of the game as it's being played.

You can teach skills. You can teach actions (like pick-and-roll). You can teach plays.

But teaching spatial recognition is another thing entirely. Teaching decision-making -- with the decisions involving 10 bodies moving at a high speed -- is very difficult. Even teaching just one aspect of on-court decision-making, passing, is very difficult.

So here's something I say to our players:

Vision
Decision
Execution

The last is really the only one you can teach. The hardest one is the first one, and I tend to think it's something that develops (or doesn't develop) differently for every person. We had a player who saw the court perfectly in eighth grade, and she made us look like very smart coaches (she was second in the nation in assists at the D-1 level) but we didn't teach her anything. And I don't know any way of teaching what she had before she got to us.

Yes, teaching is more difficult than just drilling; that is why good coaching can make such a difference. Also, one doesn't need perfect vision, etc., but raising the floor makes players closer to the ceiling and given what one sees generally, raising the floor can breed significant success.

Back in Harmon raising the floor would also have made the baskets lower.

Good post

I think most everyone agrees that Vision. Athleticism, and intangibles are mostly born and not taught

But good coaching can improve all incrementally

A few examples

Vision -a player can be taught to look at different things to improve their vision players too often look at the player in front of them, but they can be taught to instead look at the help defenders, direction, stance and eyes to determine when/if to drive will they become Kidd? Certainly not

Athleticism- plenty of drills to improve foot quickness, hand coordination, strength, jumping ability - will that make a 5-9 player more athletic than a 6-4 player with the same athletic base certainly not

Defense- lots of coaching to improve on ball defense, and recognition on defense but does that transform a player to be like Jorge? I remember a player saying "you can try to play like Jorge, but you can't be Jorge (I also remember Monty talk about a player who came in with the rep of being a hustle player "don't confuse activity with results with all his activity I think something good is bound to happen)

ClayK said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

If we assume that the players are being taught to pick and roll, etc., the failure in execution is still a coaching issue. Good basketball isn't like Arthur Murray dance studio: set plays are very limiting. Players need to be taught to recognize situations and move naturally to take advantage of those situations. Cal has a number of players who need to develop their individual skills, but even more so, need to gain understanding and recognition of the game. THAT, is where good coaching makes a huge difference.

---

A good point, but the hardest thing to teach is understanding and recognition of the game as it's being played.

You can teach skills. You can teach actions (like pick-and-roll). You can teach plays.

But teaching spatial recognition is another thing entirely. Teaching decision-making -- with the decisions involving 10 bodies moving at a high speed -- is very difficult. Even teaching just one aspect of on-court decision-making, passing, is very difficult.

So here's something I say to our players:

Vision
Decision
Execution

The last is really the only one you can teach. The hardest one is the first one, and I tend to think it's something that develops (or doesn't develop) differently for every person. We had a player who saw the court perfectly in eighth grade, and she made us look like very smart coaches (she was second in the nation in assists at the D-1 level) but we didn't teach her anything. And I don't know any way of teaching what she had before she got to us.

---

Given the amount of money involved, the competition for jobs and the size of staffs, I tend to think there are very few P5 programs that don't do a good job developing and improving players. It seems to me the marginal difference in player development from one staff to another isn't going to be that great. Again, it's not like this is quantum mechanics ...

At the lower levels and on the women's side, I do think coaching and development can make a big difference. At the Pac-12 men's level, I just think the most important ingredient for success, by far, is talent.

I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees the biggest factor is talent

ClayK said:

---

Given the amount of money involved, the competition for jobs and the size of staffs, I tend to think there are very few P5 programs that don't do a good job developing and improving players. It seems to me the marginal difference in player development from one staff to another isn't going to be that great. Again, it's not like this is quantum mechanics ...

At the lower levels and on the women's side, I do think coaching and development can make a big difference. At the Pac-12 men's level, I just think the most important ingredient for success, by far, is talent.

---

ClayK said:

---

Given the amount of money involved, the competition for jobs and the size of staffs, I tend to think there are very few P5 programs that don't do a good job developing and improving players. It seems to me the marginal difference in player development from one staff to another isn't going to be that great. Again, it's not like this is quantum mechanics ...

At the lower levels and on the women's side, I do think coaching and development can make a big difference. At the Pac-12 men's level, I just think the most important ingredient for success, by far, is talent.

---

Pretty much agree here. Posters tend to give too much technical credit or blame on coaches for the players' development when the burden is 95% on the players and their desire to get better. What is more important is the coach's ability to motivate and inspire.

That said, the difference between winning and losing is sometimes slight, so any technical advantage certainly helps.

Civil Bear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Given the amount of money involved, the competition for jobs and the size of staffs, I tend to think there are very few P5 programs that don't do a good job developing and improving players. It seems to me the marginal difference in player development from one staff to another isn't going to be that great. Again, it's not like this is quantum mechanics ...

At the lower levels and on the women's side, I do think coaching and development can make a big difference. At the Pac-12 men's level, I just think the most important ingredient for success, by far, is talent.

---

Pretty much agree here. Posters tend to give too much technical credit or blame on coaches for the players' development when the burden is 95% on the players and their desire to get better. What is more important is the coach's ability to motivate and inspire.

That said, the difference between winning and losing is sometimes slight, so any technical advantage certainly helps.

---

And Cal student athletes cannot be in the gym 247. It is not a good strategy for Cal to have a coach that brings in a lot of raw players as projects hoping to develop their skills and feel for the game. One or two, especially big men, may be necessary, but Cal does not have a good record with projects overall.

Agree with points made here. By the time players get to college the most important factor of development is within the player and not the coaching staff. Coaching staff must recruit the right pieces and identify the character of the athletes. Besides that, they are ego and game managers. Recruiting at schools that A) don't pay guys or B) aren't powerhouse names is much more difficult obviously, and takes a coach with a more unique approach than what we're getting.

HoopDreams said:

---

I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees the biggest factor is talent

ClayK said:

---

Given the amount of money involved, the competition for jobs and the size of staffs, I tend to think there are very few P5 programs that don't do a good job developing and improving players. It seems to me the marginal difference in player development from one staff to another isn't going to be that great. Again, it's not like this is quantum mechanics ...

At the lower levels and on the women's side, I do think coaching and development can make a big difference. At the Pac-12 men's level, I just think the most important ingredient for success, by far, is talent.

---

---

Certainly talent is the most important factor - but I land more in Hoop Dreams opinion than the opinion of "its the player and their personal commitment/ to success coupled with a coach who mostly needs to manage player ego mgmt/game mgmt etc. "Talent" is a combination of certainly athletic and physical attributes, but also needs to be combined with getting those skilled players, to play with consistent effort, shared cognition and as a team. The most effective coaches implement a system that maximizes scoring efficiency and teaches the team to play a defense that minimizes the opponents efficiency. Elite coaches/staff do maximize their teams results. And has been mentioned earlier, several examples support the effectiveness of top notch staffs. (Monty, Cronin, Bennett both: ) etc. as well as those with talent laden rosters - Coach K/Boehim/Few etc

...and who will teach these skills?

4thGenCal said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees the biggest factor is talent

ClayK said:

---

Given the amount of money involved, the competition for jobs and the size of staffs, I tend to think there are very few P5 programs that don't do a good job developing and improving players. It seems to me the marginal difference in player development from one staff to another isn't going to be that great. Again, it's not like this is quantum mechanics ...

At the lower levels and on the women's side, I do think coaching and development can make a big difference. At the Pac-12 men's level, I just think the most important ingredient for success, by far, is talent.

---

---

Certainly talent is the most important factor - but I land more in Hoop Dreams opinion than the opinion of "its the player and their personal commitment/ to success coupled with a coach who mostly needs to manage player ego mgmt/game mgmt etc. "Talent" is a combination of certainly athletic and physical attributes, but also needs to be combined with getting those skilled players, to play with consistent effort, shared cognition and as a team. The most effective coaches implement a system that maximizes scoring efficiency and teaches the team to play a defense that minimizes the opponents efficiency. Elite coaches/staff do maximize their teams results. And has been mentioned earlier, several examples support the effectiveness of top notch staffs. (Monty, Cronin, Bennett both: ) etc. as well as those with talent laden rosters - Coach K/Boehim/Few etc

---

This Cal team will be the first in at least 40 years that will not have a single player who was ranked in the Top 100 coming out of high school. It will also likely be the only team in the PAC-12 without a Top 100 recruit on the team. Last year we had one, Matt Bradley, and we finished in last place.

WSU had no Top 100 players last year. This year year they are in Lunardi's pre-season Bracetology as a bubble team. I was very impressed with what Kyle Smith did at Columbia. He did well at USF and appears to be doing wonders at WSU. He is now attracting talent there, players I would like to see at Cal.

I still fail to understand why Kyle Smith was not hired as the Cal coach.

ClayK said:

---

I still fail to understand why Kyle Smith was not hired as the Cal coach.

---

Because Kyle Smith did not sign up with the same recruiting firm as Fox. So when Knowlton hired the firm to give him a short list of candidates, Smith wasn't on it.