eastcoastcal said:

---

I'm sorry, Cone is such a liability. When he's on a cold streak (often) he is just such a huge detriment on the floor. Very undersized for defense and doesn't bring nearly enough in terms of facilitation or anything else to justify his atrocious shooting. He's shooting 33% from the field and 32% from 3 this season. I know we don't have many other options but we have to talk about his performance. 2/9 from the field today and 1/8 from beyond the arc. For a supposed 3 point specialist on such big volume, shooting 32% from 3 on the season is unacceptable. It would be different if he was a streaky PG who could distribute or a streaky 3&D guy, but his only major skillset is shooting which has been bad this season.

Absolutely not my intention to rag on a guy but at some point we need to get better efficiency or selectively use him in specific scenarios. I know he has the talent to knock them down but I've been disappointed with his shot selection at times- I'd expect more from a veteran player.

Not even making this post because I'm mad about the Oregon loss- they're a good team and I liked that we made it pretty close. But if we want to win more games down the stretch, we simply can't give Cone this many minutes with such bad efficiency.

---

Stating the obvious, but ok.

Been feeling this way for some time, takes too many shots

Should have played Rodney more. During the USC game, when Cone went to the bench and Rodney came in, we put together a good run and had a chance to win it. This game, Madsen just left Cone in and we had no chance.

eastcoastcal said:

---

I'm sorry, Cone is such a liability. When he's on a cold streak (often) he is just such a huge detriment on the floor. Very undersized for defense and doesn't bring nearly enough in terms of facilitation or anything else to justify his atrocious shooting. He's shooting 33% from the field and 32% from 3 this season. I know we don't have many other options but we have to talk about his performance. 2/9 from the field today and 1/8 from beyond the arc. For a supposed 3 point specialist on such big volume, shooting 32% from 3 on the season is unacceptable. It would be different if he was a streaky PG who could distribute or a streaky 3&D guy, but his only major skillset is shooting which has been bad this season.

Absolutely not my intention to rag on a guy but at some point we need to get better efficiency or selectively use him in specific scenarios. I know he has the talent to knock them down but I've been disappointed with his shot selection at times- I'd expect more from a veteran player.

Not even making this post because I'm mad about the Oregon loss- they're a good team and I liked that we made it pretty close. But if we want to win more games down the stretch, we simply can't give Cone this many minutes with such bad efficiency.

---

I don't like the bad shots he sometimes takes, but he's the best shooter we have and shooting 32% from 3 is equal to 50% from two.

also, he drove a kicked twice for two wide open 3s that our players missed. That's not on him.

good point on the kick outs but I dont think 33% is equal to 50% from 2..? You're very knowledgable hoop so I don't want to directly contradict you but 33% has to be significantly lower than 50% from the field, no? It would place him as the 220th best team 3 point% average out of 351 eligible teams, to give you an idea of where he would stand when compared to a large sample size. Meaning 220 teams as a whole shoot better from 3 than him, and he's supposed to be our best shooter. And his FG% is second worst on the team, only ahead of Askew (not a shooter) and Monty (doesn't play). He really hasn't shot the ball well imo.

eastcoastcal said:

---

good point on the kick outs but I dont think 33% is equal to 50% from 2..? You're very knowledgable hoop so I don't want to directly contradict you but 33% has to be significantly lower than 50% from the field, no? It would place him as the 220th best team 3 point% average out of 351 eligible teams, to give you an idea of where he would stand when compared to a large sample size. Meaning 220 teams as a whole shoot better from 3 than him, and he's supposed to be our best shooter. And his FG% is second worst on the team, only ahead of Askew (not a shooter) and Monty (doesn't play). He really hasn't shot the ball well imo.

---

Linearly, yes 32% threes equate to 48% twos in points. However, basketball is not linear. If you only count twos then 48% isn't as great as it sounds, and most threes are less contested than most twos. Then you have to account for things like defenses having an easier time getting set after made baskets and teams getting more runouts after missed threes. Threes also draw fewer fouls.

How many minimum shots must a player have taken at this point in the season to be included in this comparison? A teammate who has only taken four 3-pointers and made two for a 50% successful shot rate is not going to sustain that success rate over 8-9 shots per game every game. The sample size is important in this type of comparison if you wish your conclusion to have meaning.

stu said:

---

In conference play (6 games so far) Cone is shooting .231 on threes (12/52) and .286 (4/14) on twos. The rest of the team is shooting .378 on threes (42/111) and .495 (98/198) on twos.

---

That is killing us. And the obvious thing is that he has a harder time getting good looks in P12 play. He should understand that. Mad Dog should help him understand that. He had a couple of controlled mid-range Js at UCLA. That is what I would like to see more of going forward.

To eastcoast, I meant mathematically (33% x 3 = 50% x 2)

Civil, agree that there are many other factors such as long rebounds leading to runouts (only 1 vs Oregon) and totally agree about fewer fouls (although 3 point shooters do get fouled and get 3 FTs (happened once vs Oregon). Basketball is all connected. Having Cone should also open up the court allowing more space for slashers like Tyson and Kennedy

Certainly Cone has not achieved the best 3 point shooting results but he is to my eye the best 3 point shooter. For example he is our only shooter who can shoot off the bounce. Every other player are catch and shoot 3 shooters (Tyson has some skill shooting off the move)

Cone's major problem is he takes WAY TOO MANY BAD shots. I don't blame him completely for this as a common play we run is running him around a high screen where he has to catch and square as he shoots off the bounce

Great play to run occasionally but teams have scouted it and when you run that play you're committed. You have to take it, which is why he sometimes is way off balance

Bottom line is our offense should not give him so many high difficulty shots, and he needs to drive and kick more often like he did twice vs ducks, or reduce his overall minutes (but too whom…I'd say Celestine except he's still not 100% and you don't want to run him too hard)

I'd like to see more minutes to Brown, and maybe Vlad when he returns (although with Vlad we lose the threat of 3s to open the court but hopefully gain some defense and passing)

This team is short 1 big (until Okofor returns), and 1 guard

Civil Bear said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

good point on the kick outs but I dont think 33% is equal to 50% from 2..? You're very knowledgable hoop so I don't want to directly contradict you but 33% has to be significantly lower than 50% from the field, no? It would place him as the 220th best team 3 point% average out of 351 eligible teams, to give you an idea of where he would stand when compared to a large sample size. Meaning 220 teams as a whole shoot better from 3 than him, and he's supposed to be our best shooter. And his FG% is second worst on the team, only ahead of Askew (not a shooter) and Monty (doesn't play). He really hasn't shot the ball well imo.

---

Linearly, yes 32% threes equate to 48% twos in points. However, basketball is not linear. If you only count twos then 48% isn't as great as it sounds, and most threes are less contested than most twos. Then you have to account for things like defenses having an easier time getting set after made baskets and teams getting more runouts after missed threes. Threes also draw fewer fouls.

---

Not a Cone fan but he is what we have.

it's semantics, but if you ran drills and gave every Cal player the same shots, same plays, same defenders, I still believe Cone would win the drill by a large margin. That's what I am referring to when I say, to my eye he is our best shooter

as to limiting his bad shots, alot of it is on him. He is a volume shooter who never saw I shot he didn't like.

but that's why you have coaches. the coaches need to use and guide the player for the benefit of the overall team

I don't know why Madsen give him the total green light, although I'm sure they coach him on shot selection. That's why I pointed out the play they run often. I wonder what his shooting percentage is on that high difficulty play.

I heard Madsen talk about Cone preseason and said something like he demands so much attention and opens up the court for everyone else (Madsen coached against Cone's team, with him scoring 29 pts in an OT win for N. Arizona).

His 3% are down a little, but his TOs are also down:

Oakbear said:

---

Been feeling this way for some time, takes too many shots

---

If I'm the opponent I just lay off him let him launch as many as he wants. Of all 3 PAC 12 games yesterday the highest number of assists by a single player was 5. One of the games with upwards of 140 combined points.

Rotten Tomatoes
Coneheads offers further evidence that stretching an SNL sketch to feature length can be tougher than narfling a garthok.

upsetof86 said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

Been feeling this way for some time, takes too many shots

---

If I'm the opponent I just lay off him let him launch as many as he wants. Of all 3 PAC 12 games yesterday the highest number of assists by a single player was 5. One of the games with upwards of 140 combined points.

---

I chase him towards that high screen all day, where he curls and chucks it off balance. A very low percentage shot.

Sorry, didn't think my post was overly negative or a personal attack on Cone. He takes a lot of questionable/forced shots. Either that's on him, or on Madsen. Like I said, he could be a valuable player if he adjusted his game to better fit what the team needs from him.

"The injuries to Askew and Bowser has caused Madsen to put Cone on the floor far more than he intended to at the beginning of the season"

Is Bowser injured?

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

All I'm trying to get to here is I think we should back off a bit on our critique of Jalen Cone's intentions. I think he's just as much a team player as anyone. (Little reminder: We almost blew the UCSD game but Cone's flip back pass to JC for a three pointer sealed it.) Let's cut the guy a little slack.

---

Very well said.

On one of Tyson's key drives against Colorado, he screened 6'11, 265+ Lampkin ever so slightly.

GO BEARS!!!

I am not saying anything different

Part of being a good shooter is knowing a good shot from a bad shot

The worst bad shot he took was jacking up a contested 3 early in clock when we were up 2 with under a minute which probably lost the game

I think people are confused by my 'best shooter' comment

If you picked one player to shoot the ball off the bounce who would you pick? I'd pick Cone by a large margin

For catch and shoot I'd pick Cone or Celestine, or If game was on the line under a minute I might pick Tyson even though his form is a little unorthodox

The problem is cone takes too many bad shots. Part of that is him, part of that is his teammates, and part of that is our offense

One thing is clear Madsen wants to spread the floor with shooters, which also opens the floor for slashers

bluesaxe said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

good point on the kick outs but I dont think 33% is equal to 50% from 2..? You're very knowledgable hoop so I don't want to directly contradict you but 33% has to be significantly lower than 50% from the field, no? It would place him as the 220th best team 3 point% average out of 351 eligible teams, to give you an idea of where he would stand when compared to a large sample size. Meaning 220 teams as a whole shoot better from 3 than him, and he's supposed to be our best shooter. And his FG% is second worst on the team, only ahead of Askew (not a shooter) and Monty (doesn't play). He really hasn't shot the ball well imo.

---

The math is clear that they are equivalent, but good three point shooters are in the high 30"s into the 40's. Cone isn't a good three point shooter. He's a streaky three point shooter who seems to think he's better than he is. By shooting bad shots he's taking away the team's opportunities for better shots. It's more indicative of a player's efficiency to look at effective field goal percentage, which combines the two. His is quite low, 8th on the team.

Cal is 48th in three pointers attempted, shooting 34% as a TEAM and ranks only 161st in three point percentage. Cone has taken 167 of the team's 448 three point attempts and is the seventh best by percentage on the team. That's something the coaches should be correcting.

---

DaveT said:

---

Sorry, didn't think my post was overly negative or a personal attack on Cone. He takes a lot of questionable/forced shots. Either that's on him, or on Madsen. Like I said, he could be a valuable player if he adjusted his game to better fit what the team needs from him.

---

No need to apologize. Your comment clearly stated it was either on him or Madsen. My response was based more on the notion that Cone may not being accepting his role. My gut feeling FWIW, is that that is not the case. Let's all hope that moving forward a little tweak to the entire situation might make things better.

HoopDreams said:

---

"The injuries to Askew and Bowser has caused Madsen to put Cone on the floor far more than he intended to at the beginning of the season"

Is Bowser injured?

---

I thought that someone mentioned that he is.
Just like the Okafor situation, being a Cal fan means never knowing anything too specific.

Could be. He hasn't played in awhile. I assumed because his minutes went to Brown

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

"The injuries to Askew and Bowser has caused Madsen to put Cone on the floor far more than he intended to at the beginning of the season"

Is Bowser injured?

---

I thought that someone mentioned that he is.
Just like the Okafor situation, being a Cal fan means never knowing anything too specific.

---

Well I dont know but a month ago Madsen was pretty high on Bowser , Wowsers, The rumor is he is injured. Someone from the press needs to ask. Madsen isnt Fox. He is ok with tough questions.

I could start a Fardaws Aimaq thread and pick him apart, too, but bearister might start calling me an f'ing quitter!
There's no one player on the squad, including Cone, that should/would/could be used in some different way to turn a string of Ls into Ws. Our struggles this season don't have anything to do with poor shooting, it's the other big stuff - no inside game, lack of defensive effort/know-how, over-reliance on the Jaylon Show. It's slowly coming together. That said, I'm in total agreement that we rely on the three or difficult jump shot to win games, and Mad Dog needs to shake the playbook up in the next 6 weeks, we literally have nothing to lose.

barsad said:

---

I could start a Fardaws Aimaq thread and pick him apart, too, but bearister might start calling me an f'ing quitter! …..

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/3/topics/118209


https://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/individual/556

Not completely sure what this means. Decent link. But for heaven's sake, TAKE OFF THAT RED SHIRT!!!

Just perused Washington box scores. The formidable Huskie Center went down for the count vs the Beavers and now they have a forward who is undersized for the position filling in. Look for Daws to abuse him. They have scorers so we may be looking at another O situation where to win we either have to defend the 3 ball or drop more of them than they do.