My advice, get Lars a jump rope....and get a boxer to show him some moves. Balance, agility, quickness, staying on the balls of your feet....jumping rope for a tall player a lost art and skill.

drizzlybear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Lars also seemed to be having fun out there yesterday, which is cool because, just on this board alone, he has caught a lot of crap over the past 2 1/2 years (not completely undeserved, based on his play, but still... ). He's had a number of games where the ball would be going off his hands a lot (even this season) and it must've been frustrating, so it's great to see him smiling.

He's developing into a confident basketball player and that confidence will feed on itself and makes his hands even better.

---

But this speaks to the issue of rushing to judgment that happens too often on this board - especially for those who've made up their minds about the coach.

Certainly there are basketball players who are polished impactful players upon entering college. Cal isn't in the running for those (and I'm not sure we even want those players, but that's a topic for a different thread).

Anticevich and Kelly both showed signs of skills as freshmen, you could see it if you were open to seeing it. But both needed time to develop their bodies, confidence, and skills to be quality P12 players by their third and fourth seasons (which both have done).

I felt that Lars, Brown, Kuany, and Celestine showed potential as well (wasn't sure about Thorpe), and potentially Bowser. Celestine was the only one of those first/main four who is an American basketball player and, perhaps not surprisingly, he entered the most polished of them. The pandemic had its greatest impact on the raw players' (Lars, Kuany, and Brown) development. But you could see some potential in each of them; Lars with some post skills to go with decent balance and coordination for such a big player; Brown with lightning speed (including with the ball) a pass-first mentality, and good on-ball defense; and Kuany with the super athleticism and length, to go along with the ability to shoot the three.

You could see hints of those attributes in each of them as freshmen. It takes time, and the pandemic impeded their development a bit, but we're now seeing signs of that development starting to come to fruition, although as I've said a number of times, Kuany's development is not where I'd hoped it would be at this point, especially since I believe he's had an extra year in the program than the other two.

I wish they would each use their full eligibility to play for Cal because they arrived so raw and had one year of development significantly impeded. I was sorry to read 4thGen's expectation that next season would be Brown's last year playing for Cal.

To be clear, it's still not enough. Even with my optimistic projections for these players, it won't be enough to support an ncaa-tournament-level team. I thought it might possibly have been so this season had Bradley returned. But even with Fox having pulled a rabbit out of his hat with the add of Shepherd this season the roster hasn't been close to competing for ncaa tournament (even prior to Kelly's injury).

So while it's not enough at the team level, it is nice to see individual players develop and realize the signs of potential they showed as freshmen.

---

Good post. I have mentioned a number of times that we were hampered last season by these guys not being able to have a full freshman-to-sophomore off-season of growth, due to pandemic restrictions.

FYI, Kuany is the same class as Lars and Joel Brown, this is their third year here. Thorpe and Klonaras are also in that class.

stu said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

But this speaks to the issue of rushing to judgment that happens too often on this board - especially for those who've made up their minds about the coach ...

---

The coach isn't an 18-year-old seven-footer growing into his body and learning the game. Now I'm sure an old Fox can learn new tricks but I'm not expecting miracles.

---

I'm not suggesting the coach will develop; I'm saying that those who've given up on the coach seem to be the ones most likely to rush to judgment and dismiss young players' ability to develop.

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

drizzlybear said:

---

stu said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

But this speaks to the issue of rushing to judgment that happens too often on this board - especially for those who've made up their minds about the coach ...

---

The coach isn't an 18-year-old seven-footer growing into his body and learning the game. Now I'm sure an old Fox can learn new tricks but I'm not expecting miracles.

---

I'm not suggesting the coach will develop; I'm saying that those who've given up on the coach seem to be the ones most likely to rush to judgment and dismiss young players' ability to develop.

---

I support Fox and I dont think Roberson can shoot.

stu said:

---

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

---

Not in the current state of P12 basketball. Any diamonds that get polished will get snatched up by better programs where they can shine. If our conference foes were doing the same (as in a mid major or low major conference) then this strategy might be OK. But we're in the P12 - Knowlton needs to realize that.

stu said:

---

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

---

I agree, and I have the same question. My ideal vision for Cal basketball is a program built primarily on veteran role players, but with a regular recurrence of a star scorer or two who is good enough to leave for the nba after two or three years. We're clearly not there yet.

drizzlybear said:

---

stu said:

---

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

---

I agree, and I have the same question. My ideal vision for Cal basketball is a program built primarily on veteran role players, but with a regular recurrence of a star scorer or two who is good enough to leave for the nba after two or three years. We're clearly not there yet.

---

I think the answer to Stu's question is that this is unlikely to get us out of the bottom and will at best maybe get us to .500 in conference. Just do the math - if your players take 2-3 years to become decent-to-good, that means in any single season, you only have a rotation of 6-8 players and that's not enough. Obviously, I'm assuming some linearity in recruiting and progress that oversimplifies things, but I think you get my point. This mix is what Cal has now, and more of the players are decent than good.

HearstMining said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

stu said:

---

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

---

I agree, and I have the same question. My ideal vision for Cal basketball is a program built primarily on veteran role players, but with a regular recurrence of a star scorer or two who is good enough to leave for the nba after two or three years. We're clearly not there yet.

---

I think the answer to Stu's question is that this is unlikely to get us out of the bottom and will at best maybe get us to .500 in conference. Just do the math - if your players take 2-3 years to become decent-to-good, that means in any single season, you only have a rotation of 6-8 players and that's not enough. Obviously, I'm assuming some linearity in recruiting and progress that oversimplifies things, but I think you get my point. This mix is what Cal has now, and more of the players are decent than good.

---

A tight rotation of your best 6-8 players could work, many coaches do that, but that is not what Fox does. He tends to play a lot of different lineups and goes pretty deep in his rotation. He often is skimpy on minutes for guys that are among his most productive and continues to give major minutes to guys who are not getting it done. This was one of the complaints of fans at Georgia and we have definitely seen it here.

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

stu said:

---

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

---

I agree, and I have the same question. My ideal vision for Cal basketball is a program built primarily on veteran role players, but with a regular recurrence of a star scorer or two who is good enough to leave for the nba after two or three years. We're clearly not there yet.

---

I think the answer to Stu's question is that this is unlikely to get us out of the bottom and will at best maybe get us to .500 in conference. Just do the math - if your players take 2-3 years to become decent-to-good, that means in any single season, you only have a rotation of 6-8 players and that's not enough. Obviously, I'm assuming some linearity in recruiting and progress that oversimplifies things, but I think you get my point. This mix is what Cal has now, and more of the players are decent than good.

---

A tight rotation of your best 6-8 players could work, many coaches do that, but that is not what Fox does. He tends to play a lot of different lineups and goes pretty deep in his rotation. He often is skimpy on minutes for guys that are among his most productive and continues to give major minutes to guys who are not getting it done. This was one of the complaints of fans at Georgia and we have definitely seen it here.

---

Interestingly, one thing I will give Fox credit for is giving several players a long run to prove or disprove themselves. The two examples are Lars during his first year and Hyder this year. In both cases, the experiment didn't work. Lars was too green and only now is at a point where he can be a reliable contributor - at least against average competition. Hyder, for whatever reason (injuries, bad karma, you choose) has played himself out of the rotation.

As far as Cal's rotation, I'd say that this year's team, compared to the 5-6 Pac12 opponents I've seen, has 1-2 good players and 4-5 decent ones. None of the decent ones would start for Zona, USC, or UCLA. In fact, I watched a USF game and I doubt most of them would start for USF. As others have repeatedly said, recruiting has to improve.

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

stu said:

---

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

---

I agree, and I have the same question. My ideal vision for Cal basketball is a program built primarily on veteran role players, but with a regular recurrence of a star scorer or two who is good enough to leave for the nba after two or three years. We're clearly not there yet.

---

I think the answer to Stu's question is that this is unlikely to get us out of the bottom and will at best maybe get us to .500 in conference. Just do the math - if your players take 2-3 years to become decent-to-good, that means in any single season, you only have a rotation of 6-8 players and that's not enough. Obviously, I'm assuming some linearity in recruiting and progress that oversimplifies things, but I think you get my point. This mix is what Cal has now, and more of the players are decent than good.

---

A tight rotation of your best 6-8 players could work, many coaches do that, but that is not what Fox does. He tends to play a lot of different lineups and goes pretty deep in his rotation. He often is skimpy on minutes for guys that are among his most productive and continues to give major minutes to guys who are not getting it done. This was one of the complaints of fans at Georgia and we have definitely seen it here.

---

Interestingly, one thing I will give Fox credit for is giving several players a long run to prove or disprove themselves. The two examples are Lars during his first year and Hyder this year. In both cases, the experiment didn't work. Lars was too green and only now is at a point where he can be a reliable contributor - at least against average competition. Hyder, for whatever reason (injuries, bad karma, you choose) has played himself out of the rotation.

As far as Cal's rotation, I'd say that this year's team, compared to the 5-6 Pac12 opponents I've seen, has 1-2 good players and 4-5 decent ones. None of the decent ones would start for Zona, USC, or UCLA. In fact, I watched a USF game and I doubt most of them would start for USF. As others have repeatedly said, recruiting has to improve.

---

For guys that played 100 min of more, Ranking in the advanced stats per minute and ranking in minutes played:
Year 1
1. Bradley #1
2. Kuany #10
3. Kelly #5
4. Austin #4
5. South #3
6. Anticevich #2
7. Thorpe #8
8. Thiemann #7
9. Harris-Dyson #9
10. Gordon #11
11. Brown #6

Year 2
1. Kelly #2
2. Bradley #5
3. Thorpe #11
4. Thiemann #7
5. Celestine #9
6. Brown #4
7. Anticevich #3
8. Foreman #6
9. Kuany #10
10. Betley #1.
11. Hyder #8
12. Bowser #12

Year 3
1. Kelly #5
2. Thiemann #7
3. Kuany #6
4. Alajiki #9
5. Shepherd #1
6. Celestine #4
7. Foreman #8
8. Anticevich #2
9. Brown #3
10. Hyder #10

Some of it is position. Brown has had to play a lot because we have no one else at PG. Kelly this year got hurt. Still, Kelly was our best big over the last three years and there were 27 games he played in but did not start.

Last year Betley lead the team in minutes played despite being our 10th most valuable player and a grad transfer. We definitely had other options at his position, better then and worth getting more experience for the future. Anticevich has made the most starts and played the most minutes of anyone on the team the last 3 years , despite being the #6, #7 and #8 most effective player (and our #3, #4 and #4 most valuable big.) Part of thst may be living with his limitation because we needed his three point shooting (when it was falling) , but that just points up the limitations we had at guard. Moreover, even when he was in horrible shooting slump, he just kept starting and playing major minutes. I don't mean to pile on him, love the kid like all our players, but everyone is out there competing, it should be a meritocracy.

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

stu said:

---

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

---

I agree, and I have the same question. My ideal vision for Cal basketball is a program built primarily on veteran role players, but with a regular recurrence of a star scorer or two who is good enough to leave for the nba after two or three years. We're clearly not there yet.

---

I think the answer to Stu's question is that this is unlikely to get us out of the bottom and will at best maybe get us to .500 in conference. Just do the math - if your players take 2-3 years to become decent-to-good, that means in any single season, you only have a rotation of 6-8 players and that's not enough. Obviously, I'm assuming some linearity in recruiting and progress that oversimplifies things, but I think you get my point. This mix is what Cal has now, and more of the players are decent than good.

---

A tight rotation of your best 6-8 players could work, many coaches do that, but that is not what Fox does. He tends to play a lot of different lineups and goes pretty deep in his rotation. He often is skimpy on minutes for guys that are among his most productive and continues to give major minutes to guys who are not getting it done. This was one of the complaints of fans at Georgia and we have definitely seen it here.

---

Interestingly, one thing I will give Fox credit for is giving several players a long run to prove or disprove themselves. The two examples are Lars during his first year and Hyder this year. In both cases, the experiment didn't work. Lars was too green and only now is at a point where he can be a reliable contributor - at least against average competition. Hyder, for whatever reason (injuries, bad karma, you choose) has played himself out of the rotation.

As far as Cal's rotation, I'd say that this year's team, compared to the 5-6 Pac12 opponents I've seen, has 1-2 good players and 4-5 decent ones. None of the decent ones would start for Zona, USC, or UCLA. In fact, I watched a USF game and I doubt most of them would start for USF. As others have repeatedly said, recruiting has to improve.

---

For guys that played 100 min of more, Ranking in the advanced stats per minute and ranking in minutes played:
Year 1
1. Bradley #1
2. Kuany #10
3. Kelly #5
4. Austin #4
5. South #3
6. Anticevich #2
7. Thorpe #8
8. Thiemann #7
9. Harris-Dyson #9
10. Gordon #11
11. Brown #6

Year 2
1. Kelly #2
2. Bradley #5
3. Thorpe #11
4. Thiemann #7
5. Celestine #9
6. Brown #4
7. Anticevich #3
8. Foreman #6
9. Kuany #10
10. Betley #1.
11. Hyder #8
12. Bowser #12

Year 3
1. Kelly #5
2. Thiemann #7
3. Kuany #6
4. Alajiki #9
5. Shepherd #1
6. Celestine #4
7. Foreman #8
8. Anticevich #2
9. Brown #3
10. Hyder #10

Some of it is position. Brown has had to play a lot because we have no one else at PG. Kelly this year got hurt. Still, Kelly was our best big over the last three years and there were 27 games he played in but did not start.

Last year Betley lead the team in minutes played despite being our 10th most valuable player and a grad transfer. We definitely had other options at his position, better then and worth getting more experience for the future. Anticevich has made the most starts and played the most minutes of anyone on the team the last 3 years , despite being the #6, #7 and #8 most effective player (and our #3, #4 and #4 most valuable big.) Part of thst may be living with his limitation because we needed his three point shooting (when it was falling) , but that just points up the limitations we had at guard. Moreover, even when he was in horrible shooting slump, he just kept starting and playing major minutes. I don't mean to pile on him, love the kid like all our players, but everyone is out there competing, it should be a meritocracy.

---

Defense, rebounding, errors (fouls, turnovers) and depth at position, and matchups also factor into PT

.

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

stu said:

---

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

---

I agree, and I have the same question. My ideal vision for Cal basketball is a program built primarily on veteran role players, but with a regular recurrence of a star scorer or two who is good enough to leave for the nba after two or three years. We're clearly not there yet.

---

I think the answer to Stu's question is that this is unlikely to get us out of the bottom and will at best maybe get us to .500 in conference. Just do the math - if your players take 2-3 years to become decent-to-good, that means in any single season, you only have a rotation of 6-8 players and that's not enough. Obviously, I'm assuming some linearity in recruiting and progress that oversimplifies things, but I think you get my point. This mix is what Cal has now, and more of the players are decent than good.

---

A tight rotation of your best 6-8 players could work, many coaches do that, but that is not what Fox does. He tends to play a lot of different lineups and goes pretty deep in his rotation. He often is skimpy on minutes for guys that are among his most productive and continues to give major minutes to guys who are not getting it done. This was one of the complaints of fans at Georgia and we have definitely seen it here.

---

Interestingly, one thing I will give Fox credit for is giving several players a long run to prove or disprove themselves. The two examples are Lars during his first year and Hyder this year. In both cases, the experiment didn't work. Lars was too green and only now is at a point where he can be a reliable contributor - at least against average competition. Hyder, for whatever reason (injuries, bad karma, you choose) has played himself out of the rotation.

As far as Cal's rotation, I'd say that this year's team, compared to the 5-6 Pac12 opponents I've seen, has 1-2 good players and 4-5 decent ones. None of the decent ones would start for Zona, USC, or UCLA. In fact, I watched a USF game and I doubt most of them would start for USF. As others have repeatedly said, recruiting has to improve.

---

For guys that played 100 min of more, Ranking in the advanced stats per minute and ranking in minutes played:
Year 1
1. Bradley #1
2. Kuany #10
3. Kelly #5
4. Austin #4
5. South #3
6. Anticevich #2
7. Thorpe #8
8. Thiemann #7
9. Harris-Dyson #9
10. Gordon #11
11. Brown #6

Year 2
1. Kelly #2
2. Bradley #5
3. Thorpe #11
4. Thiemann #7
5. Celestine #9
6. Brown #4
7. Anticevich #3
8. Foreman #6
9. Kuany #10
10. Betley #1.
11. Hyder #8
12. Bowser #12

Year 3
1. Kelly #5
2. Thiemann #7
3. Kuany #6
4. Alajiki #9
5. Shepherd #1
6. Celestine #4
7. Foreman #8
8. Anticevich #2
9. Brown #3
10. Hyder #10

Some of it is position. Brown has had to play a lot because we have no one else at PG. Kelly this year got hurt. Still, Kelly was our best big over the last three years and there were 27 games he played in but did not start.

Last year Betley lead the team in minutes played despite being our 10th most valuable player and a grad transfer. We definitely had other options at his position, better then and worth getting more experience for the future. Anticevich has made the most starts and played the most minutes of anyone on the team the last 3 years , despite being the #6, #7 and #8 most effective player (and our #3, #4 and #4 most valuable big.) Part of thst may be living with his limitation because we needed his three point shooting (when it was falling) , but that just points up the limitations we had at guard. Moreover, even when he was in horrible shooting slump, he just kept starting and playing major minutes. I don't mean to pile on him, love the kid like all our players, but everyone is out there competing, it should be a meritocracy.

---

Defense, rebounding, errors (fouls, turnovers) and depth at position, and matchups also factor into PT

---

The above rating is holistic, and includes defense, rebounding, assists, steals, blocks and rebounds, ie everything that contributes to wins per offensive and defensive possession.

HearstMining said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

stu said:

---

My bad, I misunderstood your post.

IMHO Fox has been recruiting mostly diamonds in the rough who should be expected to improve significantly during their careers at Cal. To Fox's credit that improvement is visible. My question is whether players who come in needing 3 or 4 years of improvement can get us out of the bottom of the conference.

---

I agree, and I have the same question. My ideal vision for Cal basketball is a program built primarily on veteran role players, but with a regular recurrence of a star scorer or two who is good enough to leave for the nba after two or three years. We're clearly not there yet.

---

I think the answer to Stu's question is that this is unlikely to get us out of the bottom and will at best maybe get us to .500 in conference. Just do the math - if your players take 2-3 years to become decent-to-good, that means in any single season, you only have a rotation of 6-8 players and that's not enough. Obviously, I'm assuming some linearity in recruiting and progress that oversimplifies things, but I think you get my point. This mix is what Cal has now, and more of the players are decent than good.

---

In fact, most coaches seem to prefer relatively short rotations with few going more than 8 deep in double digit minutes per game. But good teams have numbers 9-12 who can perform creditably when unusual foul trouble or injury require a deeper dip down the bench. We clearly don't have that. I agree Cal needs to have success developing 4 year players. I watched the Providence/Villanova game yesterday and was impressed with the quality of play by the Friars with their upperclassman dominated rotation, none of whom look like future NBAers. Of course, they did shoot the 3 ball very well, another deficiency we have to overcome