HearstMining said:
HoopDreams said:
I've posted about Lars' improvement a lot, partly because there was so much criticism of him early.
I've also posted about how Foreman added a middle game (pull up and floater) because last year he was too one-dimensional as a 3 point shooter, and teams were running him off the line. When you are triple threat, defenders need to play you straight up. They can't sag on you if you can't shoot, and they can't get into your grill if you can't drive.
I've also pointed out Brown's need to improve his handle and his finishing around the rack. He has improved his dribble incrementally, and I expect him to be able to improve it further. He now understands you don't need to straight line to the basket and immediately attempt a layup. He now sometimes drives into the paint, shot fakes, pivots, up and under, or passes. He's not yet strong at it, but improving it and getting results.
I've also seen that he learned how to do a high-running layup. I don't even know the name of that shot, but it's a running hook shot where the player runs a little wider than a layup, and shoots with the ball held wide, and then takes a hook-like-shot high over the defender and high off the glass. It's a good shot when you can't cleanly get to the hoops for a layup, or if there is a long defender in a set defense.
I've been working on this shot, and say the degree of difficulty is harder than a floater or a pull up as it's not similar to any other shot a guard takes. Watch for it from Brown and guards on other teams (Wallace used this shot a lot). It can be an effective shot when a player masters it.
It is gratifying to see players like KK, Lars, and Joel Brown improve greatly from when they arrived at Cal. But let's be realistic, none of them is yet at the level of a good (or even average) starting P5 basketball player. I'm not slamming them, just pointing out that the recipe of recruiting guys who play below average for three years only to be an average starter their fourth year (and that's the trajectory all these guys are on) won't result in team success. On an average team (which Cal hasn't been for five years), their trajectory seems to be as follows:
- First year - skill and physical development - basically practice fodder and mop-up minutes in games
- Second year - continued development - can fill minutes when starters are in foul trouble
- Third year - in the rotation, maybe starts a few games
- Fourth year - starter and contributor, has a big game or two
On a team like Cal, these players may get more game time sooner, but the result is essentially the same: they end up as, at best, average starters their final year which is the trajectory KK, Lars, and JB are on. The big problem is that this is the only type of player Fox seems to identify and attract and a whole team of these guys is not a recipe for success.
Forgetting a Jalen Brown-type player, how does Fox get the next level: players like Theo, Christopher, Joe Shipp, Bradley, etc who either start at a higher floor or improve at a steeper trajectory? Even as freshmen (especially shooters like Shipp and Bradley, but Andre Kelly, too) you'd get a glimpse of what they would become but I don't see anybody on the roster like that now - maybe Alajiki. I hoped Celestine would be further along than he is.
I think we are missing something when we say or imply that Fox has had his success in improving ONLY marginal players to be better players. We forget that Fox has inherited some players who were good recruits, and that his coaching and/or their hard work has improved those players as well as the unheralded recruits. I am thinking particularly of Matt Bradley, Andre Kelly, Grant Anticevich, all of whom have improved substantially under Mark Fox. Matt Bradley's scoring improved a lot, his 2pt FG% and his FT% both went way up, and his rebounding went up. Andre Kelly's scoring is up, and he is getting more rebounds than Richard Solomon got when he let the PAC10. He now has the stamina and the smarts to avoid foul trouble so he is able to give the team 30-35 minutes in a game. Grant's scoring has improved, his 3pt FG% is up, his FT% is up by a huge amount, his rebounding is up, and he's learned to take the ball to the basket. And he is a force defensively now. All these players improved defensively under Fox.
In fact, I believe that every player in the rotation has improved under Mark Fox, with the exception of those who were injured or sick, like Anticevich last season, Celestine with his nagging injury, and Hyder with his nagging injury and Roberson with his. Anyanwu has started to look much better than in his first games. Even Klonaris looks improved, much more aggressive out there. If we consider that Thorpe and Bowser weren't able to play a single minute. We have 15 scholarship players, with only 12 suited up, and two of those, Hyder and Roberson, maybe playing a little hurt. I'm surprised we are doing as well as we are.
Fox's problems began with having a lot of roster spots to fill when he arrived, and some he may have helped create, with some players leaving. He had only the summer to recruit them, and he knew he would have those players for 4 years. It was a little similar to what Todd Bozeman's departure left Ben Braun, which was a lot of really good players who were all going to be seniors, who would make a good run in the NCAA, but who would graduate and leave the cupboard bare for Braun in year two. Or what Braun's departure left for Mike Mongomery, who left a lot of good players who were also going to be enough for Monty to win the PAC10, but then would graduate, leaving the cupboard bare again. Monty had been away from the recruiting scene for a few years, and Fox for a year, but both had a tough time finding the best talent. Even Braun had a struggle, and he had to bring in transfers from his last school to fill some of the void. Some coaches might relish the idea of having to replace an entire starting unit or more of players, but I imagine that for most it is not easy. The worst part is you will have to keep these players around for 4 years, so any mistake you make will hurt the team. Monty was not known as a good recruiter, but what he left for Cuonzo was a good group, Bird, Mathews, Wallace, Singer, Rooks et al, and that was enough so that all Cuonzo had to do was add Brown and Rabb, and suddenly Cal was capable of a run in the NCAA.
So I am willing to cut Fox the same recruiting slack we gave to Braun and Montgomery in similar circumstances. Braun turned out to be the better recruiter, but couldn't do much with the talent. And many of his players did not improve much under his coaching. Cuonzo did not leave Wyking much, but I wasn't willing to give Wyking any more time, because (1) his players were not improving, (2) he was not so good with strategy, or coaching in games and (3) he recruited over players, which a coach should never do, IMO.
SFCityBear
