OneKeg said:

---

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).

---

experience

that why I would have put Celestine in the last play vs UW (instead of Brown)

Tyson with an array of scores/shots

OneKeg said:

---

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).

---

Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.

stu said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).

---

Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.

---

Larson not used defend outside shot

HoopDreams said:

---

stu said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).

---

Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.

---

Larson not used defend outside shot

---

Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.

Were the student tickets only free Thursday vs UW (and also Stanford)? Big student drop off today.

stu said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).

---

Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.

---

I thought Cone played good defense on Rice today. Except shoulda fouled him before that last three. But all in all a good defensive effort.
Great win!

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

stu said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).

---

Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.

---

Larson not used defend outside shot

---

Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.

---

A guard should be able to lose a 6-10 guy most of the time

Length is only one factor with perimeter defense

Larson also has less experience switching getting around screens, perimeter defense decision making, spacing, stunting, etc

HoopDreams said:

---

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

stu said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).

---

Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.

---

Larson not used defend outside shot

---

Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.

---

A guard should be able to lose a 6-10 guy most of the time

Length is only one factor with perimeter defense

Larson also has less experience switching getting around screens, perimeter defense decision making, spacing, stunting, etc

---

When the guard can't drive inside the 3-point line the 6-10 guy won't have to worry about that.

Same with screens, if all the defenders are 6-5 or taller just switch. Nobody is going to roll to the basket. You can play a 5-0 zone.

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.

ducky23 said:

---

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.

---

oskidunker said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.

---

---

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?

oskidunker said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.

---

---

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?

---

Bad calls are life in teh Pac. When WSU was making its move to go up 7, they called a foul on Tyson, but upon slow mo, it was clear that Tyson never even brushed the shooter; it was all air.

but not to worry Cal fans, the ACC refs are second worst of the Power 5

oskidunker said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.

---

---

Whatweb site is thisvfrom? I could not find a wspu web site with much activity.

oskidunker said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Usually I don't post things from opponent's boards, but this one was an all timer

We continue to get no credit when we win. No recognition that we have good players and this is not last years team.Every team concludes they beat themselves. What a miracle it would be
if we won the pac12 tournament.

I guess Stanford is getting ready to beat themselves be cause it wont be anything we do, right?
-

mikalalas
Hall Of Fame

1. Cal who has had TRASHY, PATHETIC, EMBARRASSING LOSSES TO TRASH TEAMS, of course has one of it's better games of season vs WSU.

2. Yeah WSU was having a bad game, some bad coaching decisions, but the following CRAP made it even WORSE.

3. 1 27% from 3 Cal player hit a 3, and another 30% from 3 Cal player hit a 3. That's 6 points.

4. Cal player hit a extremely super deep DESPERATION MIRACLE HEAVE BANKED 3, that's 9 points.

5. Cal hit a CIRCUS 2 point shot, that's 11 points.

6. Cal hit a bad banked 2, that's 13 points.

7. Refs made, had 1,2,3 bad missed calls, fouls. 1 of which WSU player was driving, GOT ABSOLUTELY HACKED, MUGGED by 3 Cal players. Even announcers said that. Smith almost got a technical over it. Cal went down and got a 3, for a 5 point swing on the missed foul call. That's 5 more points + 4 more points from the other 2 refs missing not calling fouls, so thats 9 total more points.

8. WSU missed about 6,7,8 freethrows, for 7 more points.

9. WSU had about 5 to 7 to 9 shots where the ball was about 67% of the way in, made and miraculously popped out. If WSU makes at least 2 of those, that 4 more points.

10. That's 6 points from point 3 + 3 points from point 4 + 2 points from point 5 + 2 points from point 6 + 9 points from point 7 + 7 points from point 8 + 4 more points from point 9. That's 33 more points WSU either could have had, should have had, or been down by less points etc.

The point is, if not for all that BS, CRAP, WSU WOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE WON EASILY, AND THAT CRAP HAPPENING MADE THE GAME HARDER THEN IT HAD TO BE.

It's bad enough that WSU was having a bad game, and some bad coaching, but that BS, CRAP, had to happen to make the bad game, bad coaching, etc, even worse and turn the game into a loss.

And despite the bad game, bad coaching, WSU only had 9,10 turnovers all game. Played hard. Played mostly ok defense, most of time, despite the occasional defensive letdown, and mostly rebounded ok, except for the occasional rebounding letdown.

About the only thing WSU did bad, beside the bad game, bad coaching, was the abysmal Freethrow shooting, and the bad shooting.

---

---

Whatweb site is thisvfrom? I could not find a wspu web site with much activity.

---

https://washingtonstate.forums.rivals.com/threads/road-sweep.27119/page-2

They were free today. Still a good amount of students showed up. Not as many as UW though.

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

stu said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).

---

Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.

---

Larson not used defend outside shot

---

Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.

---

A guard should be able to lose a 6-10 guy most of the time

Length is only one factor with perimeter defense

Larson also has less experience switching getting around screens, perimeter defense decision making, spacing, stunting, etc

---

When the guard can't drive inside the 3-point line the 6-10 guy won't have to worry about that.

Same with screens, if all the defenders are 6-5 or taller just switch. Nobody is going to roll to the basket. You can play a 5-0 zone.

---

it's true that they don't have to make decisions to go under over, or fight through screens. just switch everything. but I'd say the majority of coaches would defend with guards, not bigs in that situation

HoopDreams said:

---

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

stu said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Why was Aimaq out there on defense with 4.2 seconds left, up by 3. Don't you want to put in Brown instead? Defend the 3, give up the 2.

(Or you know, foul).

---

Exactly! Also Larson for Cone to get better length. Nobody inside the 3-point line.

---

Larson not used defend outside shot

---

Why not? He can move his feet and has long arms.

---

A guard should be able to lose a 6-10 guy most of the time

Length is only one factor with perimeter defense

Larson also has less experience switching getting around screens, perimeter defense decision making, spacing, stunting, etc

---

When the guard can't drive inside the 3-point line the 6-10 guy won't have to worry about that.

Same with screens, if all the defenders are 6-5 or taller just switch. Nobody is going to roll to the basket. You can play a 5-0 zone.

---

it's true that they don't have to make decisions to go under over, or fight through screens. just switch everything. but I'd say the majority of coaches would defend with guards, not bigs in that situation

---

That's one reason (among many) I'm not a coach.

But how about Bowser? I forgot about him since he hasn't played for a while.

Big C said:

---

Yes, Aimaq deserves more love around here. Easily our second best player. We might appreciate him more next season.

---

With authority 😤@FardawsAimaq's 12th double-double of the season.#GoBears pic.twitter.com/gL6yArsSeo

— Cal Basketball (@CalMBBall) January 20, 2024

Big C said:

---

Yes, Aimaq deserves more love around here. Easily our second best player. We might appreciate him more next season.

---

Fyi, He is a senior. No more eligibility.

I give Aimaq about as much love as a middle of the pack big man should get. There's literally no one else we have to bring down a rebound, so getting double-doubles is not that impressive to me. He had a great game today, but there are times when he can't hit a 5-foot shot in the paint.
Anyway, the worth of a 6th year player who is only going to play for another six weeks is kind of irrelevant. The more important question about minutes at center is:
Is it more important for Aimaq to collect a few more double-doubles so he gets a better offer in Europe, or is it more important to develop Larsen, the center for the next three years who will be leading Cal teams that might actually break .500? Seems like an obvious choice to me.