My two bits worth: I am a broken record, I know, but this team has a lot of players who lack good fundamentals. I'm sure Coach Fox has stressed this stuff, but he shouldn't have to, because this is stuff that players used to learn before they ever got to Cal. What used to be second nature for most good high school players, is something that many players have to learn on the job in college. Many, maybe most teams, are forced to start freshmen, or play them a lot of minutes, and while learning fundamentals they often have to think before they act, and that spells trouble, especially at the pace of today's game.

I just finished watching a recording of the UW game. There was an early play where young Lars grabbed nice rebound, turned and fired a pass to a teammate streaking up the court, only to have it picked off by a UW player, who took it to the basket for an easy layup. We'll never know whether that was a 4 point swing or just a two point swing. Bigs have to learn when they come down with a rebound and look for a teammate to pass to, they also need to look for defenders who might break up or steal the pass, especially near the basket.

Players need to learn to fake a pass before they actually pass (and to fake a shot before taking a shot, if necessary). This is especially important when facing a zone like UW presented. With the advent of the three point shot, defenses extend their perimeter, so than the spacing of offensive players has increased a lot. The passes between offensive players around the perimeter are longer now, and take longer to reach a teammate, giving defenders more time to anticipate and intercept the pass. A few times in the UW game, there were only 3 Cal players out on the perimeter, making perimeter passes even longer, and giving defenders even more time to pick them off. Faking the pass first becomes crucial, not every time, but enough times to keep defenders honest. And coaches should try to have at least 4 players out against a zone, if the idea is to make perimeter passes.

I do not understand the urge to play fast. It is not a good strategy for every team. A team like Cal does not have enough fast players to play fast all the time. I am a firm believer in not having players play faster than they are capable of playing. Playing too fast is a recipe for turnovers and mistakes. Most speedy teams don't worry about this, because they know if they can get a slower team to play faster. The slower team will start making mistakes, and the speedy teams know that even though they themselves will sometimes make mistakes, they will be few, and they will only have to wait a few seconds before they get the ball back again.

So one of my problems with Cal is if coach Fox's idea is slow the pace and the number of possessions, then why when Cal gets a rebound do we race up the floor with the ball, only to slow down when we cross the half-court line, and then go into a virtual stall until we nearly run out the full clock, before we take our shot? It is a waste of energy, and if the idea is to play slower, limit our mistakes, and force the opponent to play more seconds of defense, then why don't we play that way the whole possession? Why play fast for the first 5 seconds, risking turnovers and then play slow the rest of the possession? I just don't see what the big rush is to get over the half-court line, if you are not running a fast break offense.

I understand what you're saying, but stanford just lost to UW today and had 21 turnovers (Cal had 17)

UW's zone is unique and they're starting to play it better now enabling them to beat some good teams recently

against WSU today, a very good defensive team, Cal had only 8 turnovers

Honestly SFCB, I don't think lack of fundamentals is what is hurting this team. Sure, the fundamentals could be be better, but I don't this team stacks up any less than other Pac 12 teams. I do wish Grant and Kuany could cut down on the turnovers.

You don't like the team's fundamentals, SoCal doesn't like the talent. I think this team's biggest downfall is they don't match up on athleticism and inside toughness. Too soft. I know this thread is about the Washington game but in yesterday's WSU game we gave up way too many offensive rebounds to WSU. This Cal team has some skill, but aggressiveness and athleticism are seriously lacking.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Honestly SFCB, I don't think lack of fundamentals is what is hurting this team. Sure, the fundamentals could be be better, but I don't this team stacks up any less than other Pac 12 teams. I do wish Grant and Kuany could cut down on the turnovers.

You don't like the team's fundamentals, SoCal doesn't like the talent. I think this team's biggest downfall is they don't match up on athleticism and inside toughness. Too soft. I know this thread is about the Washington game but in yesterday's WSU game we gave up way too many offensive rebounds to WSU. This Cal team has some skill, but aggressiveness and athleticism are seriously lacking.

---

D. All of the above.

HoopDreams said:

---

I understand what you're saying, but stanford just lost to UW today and had 21 turnovers (Cal had 17)

UW's zone is unique and they're starting to play it better now enabling them to beat some good teams recently

against WSU today, a very good defensive team, Cal had only 8 turnovers

---

Of course this Cal team, like every team, has their own deficiencies, some teams more than others. I am only writing about one aspect, and only about aspects that can be worked on daily, to improve. Fundamentals can be improved from game to game, and can be momentarily forgotten in a game, which is why coaches reminding players constantly, can have an effect. I was only speaking of a few fundamentals, as examples of what could be improved, (along with a criticism of Fox's offensive strategy), to limit mistakes on offense, which could lead to less turnovers, but also could hopefully lead to more a few more successful trips up the floor for our offense.

In light of the fundamentals I was writing about, I forgot one, dealing with passing, especially perimeter passing, and that would be that the receiver of a pass should break toward the passer to receive the pass wherever possible, which will shorten the time the defense has to catch up enough to get a hand on the pass and intercept it.

As to your point, there could be several factors why Cal had less turnovers against WSU, (a game I have not been able to see yet), and one of those might also be that Fox may have spoken with the players in between the two games up north, to strongly remind the players to take care of the ball better on offense, and ways to do this.

I was actually impressed with Cal's play in the Washington game. I thought it was terrific how Cal started poorly, but fought back from 9 points down, when UDub could have blown the game open, to leading by 7 at halftime, and increasing it to 9 points up right away as the 2nd half opened. I fell the timeouts called by Fox in the first half were critical, and maybe instrumental, and wish I had been a fly on the court to hear what he told them.

Cal let the lead narrow, but held it for most of the second half, and then let UDub catch up and pass them. Cal lost that game by failing to score a bucket for 8 minutes, until the final seconds, when the game was already lost. Like most fans here, before the game, I felt this would be a good chance for a road win, but when I saw the quickness and athleticism of the UW players, I was worried. Still, I felt Cal played very well against them. I expect Cal to handle the Huskies in Berkeley. I don't see us going 8 minutes without a bucket at home against this team.

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I understand what you're saying, but stanford just lost to UW today and had 21 turnovers (Cal had 17)

UW's zone is unique and they're starting to play it better now enabling them to beat some good teams recently

against WSU today, a very good defensive team, Cal had only 8 turnovers

---

Of course this Cal team, like every team, has their own deficiencies, some teams more than others. I am only writing about one aspect, and only about aspects that can be worked on daily, to improve. Fundamentals can be improved from game to game, and can be momentarily forgotten in a game, which is why coaches reminding players constantly, can have an effect. I was only speaking of a few fundamentals, as examples of what could be improved, (along with a criticism of Fox's offensive strategy), to limit mistakes on offense, which could lead to less turnovers, but also could hopefully lead to more a few more successful trips up the floor for our offense.

In light of the fundamentals I was writing about, I forgot one, dealing with passing, especially perimeter passing, and that would be that the receiver of a pass should break toward the passer to receive the pass wherever possible, which will shorten the time the defense has to catch up enough to get a hand on the pass and intercept it.

As to your point, there could be several factors why Cal had less turnovers against WSU, (a game I have not been able to see yet), and one of those might also be that Fox may have spoken with the players in between the two games up north, to strongly remind the players to take care of the ball better on offense, and ways to do this.

I was actually impressed with Cal's play in the Washington game. I thought it was terrific how Cal started poorly, but fought back from 9 points down, when UDub could have blown the game open, to leading by 7 at halftime, and increasing it to 9 points up right away as the 2nd half opened. I fell the timeouts called by Fox in the first half were critical, and maybe instrumental, and wish I had been a fly on the court to hear what he told them.

Cal let the lead narrow, but held it for most of the second half, and then let UDub catch up and pass them. Cal lost that game by failing to score a bucket for 8 minutes, until the final seconds, when the game was already lost. Like most fans here, before the game, I felt this would be a good chance for a road win, but when I saw the quickness and athleticism of the UW players, I was worried. Still, I felt Cal played very well against them. I expect Cal to handle the Huskies in Berkeley. I don't see us going 8 minutes without a bucket at home against this team.

---

agree.

players coming to the ball is absolutely a fundamental, and essential when you've got a defense that over plays the passing lanes (I was reminded by this yesterday when I made this exact mistake in a park pickup game)

Also, I think someone pointed out during the game that our players are not burning that over playing defense by faking the pass outside, and then V cutting to receive a bounce pass behind the over extended defensive player

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Honestly SFCB, I don't think lack of fundamentals is what is hurting this team. Sure, the fundamentals could be be better, but I don't this team stacks up any less than other Pac 12 teams. I do wish Grant and Kuany could cut down on the turnovers.

You don't like the team's fundamentals, SoCal doesn't like the talent. I think this team's biggest downfall is they don't match up on athleticism and inside toughness. Too soft. I know this thread is about the Washington game but in yesterday's WSU game we gave up way too many offensive rebounds to WSU. This Cal team has some skill, but aggressiveness and athleticism are seriously lacking.

---

I agree that there are a number of "whats" that are hurting this team. I agree that Cal does not have as much athleticism or talent as many of our opponents. Basketball is not the same game today as in the past, but some things still have held reasonably true, for 60 years or more, IMO, and some ways to become competitive against teams with more talent is to reduce your mistakes and errors, and to secondly to play smarter than teams with more talent. Limiting turnovers is so important for weaker teams. 80 years ago, Gallileo High had a player named Hank Luisetti. At Stanford he was perhaps the best player in the country. I asked my high school coach who was the best player he had ever seen, and he said it was Hank Luisetti. I asked why, and my coach said, "Against Luisetti, all we could do was freeze the ball, keep hold of it, until we had an open shot. Because if the ball got loose on the floor, Luisetti would grab it and score. He was that good. Today, every good team has several Luisettis who, if they see a loose ball, they will grab it and they will score on you. I'm not saying the best strategy is to hold the ball, and not take many shots, but at least, your players have to protect it with their life, when passing it or dribbling it. That will make a difference against the Arizonas and the UCLAs of the world, and make Cal a tougher opponent. As to turnovers, here are Cal's offenders per 40 minutes:

Brown: 2.9
Shepherd: 2.5
Kuany 2.4
Lars: 2.2
Hyder 2.1
Grant 2.0
Kelly 1.7
Celestine 1.7
Alajiki 1.6
Foreman 1.4

No one is particularly bad, but together we make about 11 Turnovers a game which is too many, if you are looking to beat good teams. We must get that into single digits. And we make only 11 assists, which is very poor. We average less than 50% of our field goals made by way of an assist, and that is quite poor as well. Shows we don't play enough team ball on offense. We need to get that over 50%, because we don't have the talent to compete with the teams with better talent, unless we play team ball on offense and play better defense.


I was trying to write here about things than can be addressed between games or in games by the coaches to improve performance incrementally for the moment. After a season ends, before the next season begins, is the time to teach new skills, new shots, and build stronger muscles, etc., and players can work to learn and perfect them. Athleticism can be improved a little with some exercises, stamina can be improved with some running in our beloved Berkeley hills, or other modern techniques, I am told. Aggressiveness is a fleeting concept. Some players are naturally aggressive, others have to get hit hard a few times, before they get aroused enough to be aggressive. I have seen Lars play passively, but sometimes he does get tired of being pushed around and he does get aggressive. He needs to get mad every game, I think. Some of this can be encouraged (or bullied in to doing) by a coach needling a player, within reason. I remember my father telling me of a story of being a second-stringer in high school. One day his coach called him a unattractive name, and my father knocked the coach cold, flat on the floor with one punch. The next day my father was surprised he had not been kicked off the team. The team had a game that day, and the starting lineup was posted on the bulletin board in the gym. My father had been promoted to first string, and he stayed there for the next 3 years. Of course, Fox had better not do this today, or he will get fired for abuse, but he and his coaches need to communicate the need for more aggressiveness. As my father proved, a player can become more aggressive overnight, and Fox could encourage aggressiveness in practice. Maybe he has, but I agree, we don't play with enough. It is hard for a bottom dweller team to get away with too much aggressiveness, because the talented athletic players are protected by the refs, and the refs know the less talented teams will try to even the odds by being very aggressive.

HoopDreams said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I understand what you're saying, but stanford just lost to UW today and had 21 turnovers (Cal had 17)

UW's zone is unique and they're starting to play it better now enabling them to beat some good teams recently

against WSU today, a very good defensive team, Cal had only 8 turnovers

---

Of course this Cal team, like every team, has their own deficiencies, some teams more than others. I am only writing about one aspect, and only about aspects that can be worked on daily, to improve. Fundamentals can be improved from game to game, and can be momentarily forgotten in a game, which is why coaches reminding players constantly, can have an effect. I was only speaking of a few fundamentals, as examples of what could be improved, (along with a criticism of Fox's offensive strategy), to limit mistakes on offense, which could lead to less turnovers, but also could hopefully lead to more a few more successful trips up the floor for our offense.

In light of the fundamentals I was writing about, I forgot one, dealing with passing, especially perimeter passing, and that would be that the receiver of a pass should break toward the passer to receive the pass wherever possible, which will shorten the time the defense has to catch up enough to get a hand on the pass and intercept it.

As to your point, there could be several factors why Cal had less turnovers against WSU, (a game I have not been able to see yet), and one of those might also be that Fox may have spoken with the players in between the two games up north, to strongly remind the players to take care of the ball better on offense, and ways to do this.

I was actually impressed with Cal's play in the Washington game. I thought it was terrific how Cal started poorly, but fought back from 9 points down, when UDub could have blown the game open, to leading by 7 at halftime, and increasing it to 9 points up right away as the 2nd half opened. I fell the timeouts called by Fox in the first half were critical, and maybe instrumental, and wish I had been a fly on the court to hear what he told them.

Cal let the lead narrow, but held it for most of the second half, and then let UDub catch up and pass them. Cal lost that game by failing to score a bucket for 8 minutes, until the final seconds, when the game was already lost. Like most fans here, before the game, I felt this would be a good chance for a road win, but when I saw the quickness and athleticism of the UW players, I was worried. Still, I felt Cal played very well against them. I expect Cal to handle the Huskies in Berkeley. I don't see us going 8 minutes without a bucket at home against this team.

---

agree.

players coming to the ball is absolutely a fundamental, and essential when you've got a defense that over plays the passing lanes (I was reminded by this yesterday when I made this exact mistake in a park pickup game)

Also, I think someone pointed out during the game that our players are not burning that over playing defense by faking the pass outside, and then V cutting to receive a bounce pass behind the over extended defensive player

---

agree squared. A lot has been made about FOXs teams limiting possessions and using up the entire shot clock. IF you're going to use that strategy, then your half court offense needs to be making the defense work for that entire shot clock period. When Cal does that (all players moving, setting picks, cutting) they do well. When they don't (lots of standing around) bad things happen. I saw this often in both Washington games. IMHO, that single difference could have meant two wins vs two losses.

I'm sure FOX and every one of his staff noticed that and mentioned it during time outs and on the bench. I'm equally sure that every player heard and acknowledged this lapse and adjusted accordingly.

So it must have been something else. Sticky sneakers maybe?

Good post, as usual. The slow play worked good for Allocco's DLS squads and can work well for Cal because of it's talent level relative to other teams in the league.

…..but as you know, the Princeton Offense kills you when you get jumped and time is now your enemy. You simply can't get back in the game fast enough….but, unfortunately, you are not used to playing up tempo and you get sloppy.

The Princeton Offense can become a giant slayer if you can get the better team to get impatient. Remember when Dick Bennett's Wisconsin-Green Bay squad knocked J Kidd & Company out of The Dance Jason's 2nd year.

I remember Leon Powe saying when he was at Oakland Tech that playing Allocco's DLS was like playing your grandmother…..and as I recall, granny got the best of them at least once.

bearister said:

---

Good post, as usual. The slow play worked good for Allocco's DLS squads and can work well for Cal because of it's talent level relative to other teams in the league.

…..but as you know, the Princeton Offense kills you when you get jumped and time is now your enemy. You simply can't get back in the game fast enough….but, unfortunately, you are not used to playing up tempo and you get sloppy.

The Princeton Offense can become a giant slayer if you can get the better team to get impatient. Remember when Dick Bennett's Wisconsin-Green Bay squad knocked J Kidd & Company out of The Dance Jason's 2nd year.

I remember Leon Powe saying when he was at Oakland Tech that playing Allocco's DLS was like playing your grandmother…..and as I recall, granny got the best of them at least once.

---

It comes down to your offense efficiency and your defensive effeciency and how it compares to the other team's offense effeciency and defensive effeciency. Points per possession verses points given up per possession.

Sometimes tempo can increase your efficiency: fast breaks for layups, or full court press for steals and layups, or a methodical offense that has a purpose, getting a high percentage shot. Those examples aside, the main point of slowing down the tempo is when an opponent's expected points per possession is greater than your expected points per possession. Increased possessions makes use of the Law of Averages to assert the expected result, so by decreasing possessions you give yourself a better chance for an upset. Sometimes coaches thst expect a lot of energy and "effort" on defense, use the first part of the offensive possession to give their players a breather.

Cal right now is #179 in offensive effeciency and #68 in defensive efficiency. For most of the teams on the PAC-12, our #332 Tempo works to our advantage to keep the score low, the margin of loss low, with a chance for a win, and give the fans the illusion "we were hanging with them until." It makes a weaker team seem competitive, which is far better than a weaker team pushing tempo, but only works to get you to mediocrity, being "competitive." It gives you nothing to sell to recruits and keeps you at that mediocre level.

Over our last three games we are averaging 54.7 pts, which is #355 out of 358 D1 teams.

calumnus said:

---

bearister said:

---

Good post, as usual. The slow play worked good for Allocco's DLS squads and can work well for Cal because of it's talent level relative to other teams in the league.

…..but as you know, the Princeton Offense kills you when you get jumped and time is now your enemy. You simply can't get back in the game fast enough….but, unfortunately, you are not used to playing up tempo and you get sloppy.

The Princeton Offense can become a giant slayer if you can get the better team to get impatient. Remember when Dick Bennett's Wisconsin-Green Bay squad knocked J Kidd & Company out of The Dance Jason's 2nd year.

I remember Leon Powe saying when he was at Oakland Tech that playing Allocco's DLS was like playing your grandmother…..and as I recall, granny got the best of them at least once.

---

It comes down to your offense efficiency and your defensive effeciency and how it compares to the other team's offense effeciency and defensive effeciency. Points per possession verses points given up per possession.

Sometimes tempo can increase your efficiency: fast breaks for layups, or full court press for steals and layups, or a methodical offense that has a purpose, getting a high percentage shot. Those examples aside, the main point of slowing down the tempo is when an opponent's expected points per possession is greater than your expected points per possession. Increased possessions makes use of the Law of Averages to assert the expected result, so by decreasing possessions you give yourself a better chance for an upset. Sometimes coaches thst expect a lot of energy and "effort" on defense, use the first part of the offensive possession to give their players a breather.

Cal right now is #179 in offensive effeciency and #68 in defensive efficiency. For most of the teams on the PAC-12, our #332 Tempo works to our advantage to keep the score low, the margin of loss low, with a chance for a win, and give the fans the illusion "we were hanging with them until." It makes a weaker team seem competitive, which is far better than a weaker team pushing tempo, but only works to get you to mediocrity, being "competitive." It gives you nothing to sell to recruits and keeps you at that mediocre level.

Over our last three games we are averaging 54.7 pts, which is #355 out of 358 D1 teams.

---

Wait, you may have (perhaps inadvertently) stumbled onto something, in terms of selling this to recruits...

"Come to Cal and you will get a breather for the first part of most of our offensive possessions!" Who wouldn't love that?

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I understand what you're saying, but stanford just lost to UW today and had 21 turnovers (Cal had 17)

UW's zone is unique and they're starting to play it better now enabling them to beat some good teams recently

against WSU today, a very good defensive team, Cal had only 8 turnovers

---

Of course this Cal team, like every team, has their own deficiencies, some teams more than others. I am only writing about one aspect, and only about aspects that can be worked on daily, to improve. Fundamentals can be improved from game to game, and can be momentarily forgotten in a game, which is why coaches reminding players constantly, can have an effect. I was only speaking of a few fundamentals, as examples of what could be improved, (along with a criticism of Fox's offensive strategy), to limit mistakes on offense, which could lead to less turnovers, but also could hopefully lead to more a few more successful trips up the floor for our offense.

In light of the fundamentals I was writing about, I forgot one, dealing with passing, especially perimeter passing, and that would be that the receiver of a pass should break toward the passer to receive the pass wherever possible, which will shorten the time the defense has to catch up enough to get a hand on the pass and intercept it.

As to your point, there could be several factors why Cal had less turnovers against WSU, (a game I have not been able to see yet), and one of those might also be that Fox may have spoken with the players in between the two games up north, to strongly remind the players to take care of the ball better on offense, and ways to do this.

I was actually impressed with Cal's play in the Washington game. I thought it was terrific how Cal started poorly, but fought back from 9 points down, when UDub could have blown the game open, to leading by 7 at halftime, and increasing it to 9 points up right away as the 2nd half opened. I fell the timeouts called by Fox in the first half were critical, and maybe instrumental, and wish I had been a fly on the court to hear what he told them.

Cal let the lead narrow, but held it for most of the second half, and then let UDub catch up and pass them. Cal lost that game by failing to score a bucket for 8 minutes, until the final seconds, when the game was already lost. Like most fans here, before the game, I felt this would be a good chance for a road win, but when I saw the quickness and athleticism of the UW players, I was worried. Still, I felt Cal played very well against them. I expect Cal to handle the Huskies in Berkeley. I don't see us going 8 minutes without a bucket at home against this team.

---

agree.

players coming to the ball is absolutely a fundamental, and essential when you've got a defense that over plays the passing lanes (I was reminded by this yesterday when I made this exact mistake in a park pickup game)

Also, I think someone pointed out during the game that our players are not burning that over playing defense by faking the pass outside, and then V cutting to receive a bounce pass behind the over extended defensive player

---

agree squared. A lot has been made about FOXs teams limiting possessions and using up the entire shot clock. IF you're going to use that strategy, then your half court offense needs to be making the defense work for that entire shot clock period. When Cal does that (all players moving, setting picks, cutting) they do well. When they don't (lots of standing around) bad things happen. I saw this often in both Washington games. IMHO, that single difference could have meant two wins vs two losses.

I'm sure FOX and every one of his staff noticed that and mentioned it during time outs and on the bench. I'm equally sure that every player heard and acknowledged this lapse and adjusted accordingly.

So it must have been something else. Sticky sneakers maybe?

---

UW basically uses the Syracuse 2-3 match up zone, which is very effective against a low post player. It is best when all the players have lots of length. The UW team is unusual in that their length is mostly in the arms, as they don't have a lot of tall players, like Syracuse usually has. There has been as much written about attacking the 2-3 match up zone as all the earlier zones, maybe more. As I understand it, the 2-3 zone is designed to limit three point shooting at the top, and to defend against an outstanding post player. The weak spots are the two corners, so one strategy to attack it is to flash a wing or even a big to the deep corner for a three. Of course, that means Cal would need to have the personnel to do that. Anticevich would be a likely choice, but he is inconsistent at the three. Kuany doesn't shoot enough volume, and neither does Celestine to really punish a Syracuse zone from the corners.

The other main weak spot in the 2-3 matchup zone is the high post at the free throw line or thereabouts. One way to attack that is if you have a player with size and who is a good mid-range shooter, along with being a good passer, and also able to drive the ball to the basket. If he flashes to the free throw line and receives the ball, the zone will have to adapt, and cover several things that this player can do. Cal has one player who has all these skills, IMO, and that is Celestine. He has the size, the quickness, and all the skills I mentioned.
As Don MacLean pointed out on the broadcast, Washington's zone took away the free throw line. I think what Hopkins did was add an additional feature to his zone, one of shifting the three players who are up top to slide back and forth in a line parallel to the free throw line, following the ball, as the opponents guards move. That would clog the area near the line, and take away either Celestine or Shepherd (my second choice for an all-around player who could get to the high post and do some damage) flashing into the FT line. Shepherd is shorter than Celestine, but he can do a lot when he gets near the paint. Back in 2018, North Carolina stomped Syracuse in the ACC, and the big reason was Theo Pinson, a 6-7 player who got to that high post and his teammates gave him the ball. The offense ran through him. They were a very unselfish team, they all passed the ball to each other for shots.

I agree with you that Cal's players were not moving, cutting, and setting picks enough. I have a feeling that Fox might not have been ready for the adjustment Hopkins made in the zone, but we can't tell what Cal was trying to do, because they were not moving. Cutting against zones and against man defenses have slightly different objectives, in that vs a man defense, one of the objectives is to wear your man out, run him into exhaustion. Still, there's no excuse for standing around.

Dana Altman plays a Syracuse zone. And he apparently is successful attacking the Syracuse zone as well. Maybe we should look at how Mike Montgomery attacked that zone, if Altman used it against Cal. I wish I could remember. Mike Montgomery's Cal teams never lost to Dana Altman's Oregon teams.

Watched part of UW v OSU game

UW's rim protector was in foul trouble which really weakened their zone

OSU attacked with players driving into the paint forcing UW to deal with it. Regardless of playing against a man or zone, getting the ball into the paint via drive or pass breaks it down

It's tougher to drive on a zone, but not impossible. Just gotta have the players capable of doing it. The best we have is Shepherd, but no one else seems capable … at least no one with the poise and vision to know when to look for their own shot or when to pass it inside or kick out

SFCityBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I understand what you're saying, but stanford just lost to UW today and had 21 turnovers (Cal had 17)

UW's zone is unique and they're starting to play it better now enabling them to beat some good teams recently

against WSU today, a very good defensive team, Cal had only 8 turnovers

---

Of course this Cal team, like every team, has their own deficiencies, some teams more than others. I am only writing about one aspect, and only about aspects that can be worked on daily, to improve. Fundamentals can be improved from game to game, and can be momentarily forgotten in a game, which is why coaches reminding players constantly, can have an effect. I was only speaking of a few fundamentals, as examples of what could be improved, (along with a criticism of Fox's offensive strategy), to limit mistakes on offense, which could lead to less turnovers, but also could hopefully lead to more a few more successful trips up the floor for our offense.

In light of the fundamentals I was writing about, I forgot one, dealing with passing, especially perimeter passing, and that would be that the receiver of a pass should break toward the passer to receive the pass wherever possible, which will shorten the time the defense has to catch up enough to get a hand on the pass and intercept it.

As to your point, there could be several factors why Cal had less turnovers against WSU, (a game I have not been able to see yet), and one of those might also be that Fox may have spoken with the players in between the two games up north, to strongly remind the players to take care of the ball better on offense, and ways to do this.

I was actually impressed with Cal's play in the Washington game. I thought it was terrific how Cal started poorly, but fought back from 9 points down, when UDub could have blown the game open, to leading by 7 at halftime, and increasing it to 9 points up right away as the 2nd half opened. I fell the timeouts called by Fox in the first half were critical, and maybe instrumental, and wish I had been a fly on the court to hear what he told them.

Cal let the lead narrow, but held it for most of the second half, and then let UDub catch up and pass them. Cal lost that game by failing to score a bucket for 8 minutes, until the final seconds, when the game was already lost. Like most fans here, before the game, I felt this would be a good chance for a road win, but when I saw the quickness and athleticism of the UW players, I was worried. Still, I felt Cal played very well against them. I expect Cal to handle the Huskies in Berkeley. I don't see us going 8 minutes without a bucket at home against this team.

---

agree.

players coming to the ball is absolutely a fundamental, and essential when you've got a defense that over plays the passing lanes (I was reminded by this yesterday when I made this exact mistake in a park pickup game)

Also, I think someone pointed out during the game that our players are not burning that over playing defense by faking the pass outside, and then V cutting to receive a bounce pass behind the over extended defensive player

---

agree squared. A lot has been made about FOXs teams limiting possessions and using up the entire shot clock. IF you're going to use that strategy, then your half court offense needs to be making the defense work for that entire shot clock period. When Cal does that (all players moving, setting picks, cutting) they do well. When they don't (lots of standing around) bad things happen. I saw this often in both Washington games. IMHO, that single difference could have meant two wins vs two losses.

I'm sure FOX and every one of his staff noticed that and mentioned it during time outs and on the bench. I'm equally sure that every player heard and acknowledged this lapse and adjusted accordingly.

So it must have been something else. Sticky sneakers maybe?

---

UW basically uses the Syracuse 2-3 match up zone, which is very effective against a low post player. It is best when all the players have lots of length. The UW team is unusual in that their length is mostly in the arms, as they don't have a lot of tall players, like Syracuse usually has. There has been as much written about attacking the 2-3 match up zone as all the earlier zones, maybe more. As I understand it, the 2-3 zone is designed to limit three point shooting at the top, and to defend against an outstanding post player. The weak spots are the two corners, so one strategy to attack it is to flash a wing or even a big to the deep corner for a three. Of course, that means Cal would need to have the personnel to do that. Anticevich would be a likely choice, but he is inconsistent at the three. Kuany doesn't shoot enough volume, and neither does Celestine to really punish a Syracuse zone from the corners.

The other main weak spot in the 2-3 matchup zone is the high post at the free throw line or thereabouts. One way to attack that is if you have a player with size and who is a good mid-range shooter, along with being a good passer, and also able to drive the ball to the basket. If he flashes to the free throw line and receives the ball, the zone will have to adapt, and cover several things that this player can do. Cal has one player who has all these skills, IMO, and that is Celestine. He has the size, the quickness, and all the skills I mentioned.
As Don MacLean pointed out on the broadcast, Washington's zone took away the free throw line. I think what Hopkins did was add an additional feature to his zone, one of shifting the three players who are up top to slide back and forth in a line parallel to the free throw line, following the ball, as the opponents guards move. That would clog the area near the line, and take away either Celestine or Shepherd (my second choice for an all-around player who could get to the high post and do some damage) flashing into the FT line. Shepherd is shorter than Celestine, but he can do a lot when he gets near the paint. Back in 2018, North Carolina stomped Syracuse in the ACC, and the big reason was Theo Pinson, a 6-7 player who got to that high post and his teammates gave him the ball. The offense ran through him. They were a very unselfish team, they all passed the ball to each other for shots.

I agree with you that Cal's players were not moving, cutting, and setting picks enough. I have a feeling that Fox might not have been ready for the adjustment Hopkins made in the zone, but we can't tell what Cal was trying to do, because they were not moving. Cutting against zones and against man defenses have slightly different objectives, in that vs a man defense, one of the objectives is to wear your man out, run him into exhaustion. Still, there's no excuse for standing around.

Dana Altman plays a Syracuse zone. And he apparently is successful attacking the Syracuse zone as well. Maybe we should look at how Mike Montgomery attacked that zone, if Altman used it against Cal. I wish I could remember. Mike Montgomery's Cal teams never lost to Dana Altman's Oregon teams.

---