What happened in the last 4.2 seconds

2,318 Views | 26 Replies | Last: 10 mo ago by Jeff82
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great win, great heart, good coaching, in general, to beat a strong team. But the last 4.2 seconds was a mess. I reviewed my recording to see what happened, in case anyone cares.

Cal has its starting lineup on the floor, Aimaq, Tyson, Celestine, Kennedy and Cone. They come out in what looks like a 2-3 zone, but the two outside lower defenders, Tyson and Celestine, are so high it looks like a 4-1.

As the ball is inbounded, Cal switches to a man-to-man. Sure, why not. Now I think Aimaq should not be on the floor and instead should have been replaced by Rodney Brown. But he is on the floor, inexplicably guarding his man from like 10 feet away. His dropping off exposes Cone to be picked by the WSU big.

Cone is constantly having to fight through picks because Aimaq always drops. As the season has progressed he has gotten much better at fighting through them. But it is tough, and I look forward to a day when Cal has a center who can defend more of the floor.

Back to the play, Cone fights through the pick, but Rice gets the ball dribbling towards the top of the key. Cone is a little behind him. Aimaq has moved up to be like five feet from his man who is standing outside the three point line. As Rice approaches the top of the key to shoot, Aimaq backs off towards the basket instead of helping! Maddening. The other three Bears stay attached to their men as they should. As Rice picks up his dribble Cone jumps but with sufficient distance not to foul. When Cone comes down he can't foul as Rice goes up to tie the game.

I think Cone was never in position to foul. I think if Brown was in the game Cal was likely to have been able to foul on the catch. The first mistake was having Aimaq in the game. The second was Aimaq inexplicably dropping in defense. Problems like this over and over does not look good for Madsen.
drizzlybear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree. Aimaq should not have been in there. Seems as though it should've been Brown or Newell. It seems like Aimaq was just defending the key, which was unnecessary since WSU needed three points in that possession. Or it seems like he was in to guard Jones, but that also seems unnecessary since, again, wsu needed a 3 and Jones is not a threat from 3 (and FA wasn't close about to Jones to defend a 3 if Jones did take one).

Madsen obviously knows way more about the game than I'll ever know, including what's going on with his personnel in the moment, but from the fans' vantage point that one is a head scratcher. I did notice that he employed a different defense than the 1-3-1 that got burned in that same situation Thursday night (leaving the bottom "1" in the difficult position of having to guard both corners).
JimSox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looked to me like Rice shuffled both feet before starting his shooting motion. Traveled. Did anyone else notice that?
Marchmadsen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shuffled both his feet 2 different times before the shot
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think this team should ever run a 1-3-1

I do think coaches go with who they trust over sometimes having the most apparently 'optimal' players on the court

Lots of unexpected things happen in a basketball game
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Didn't quite understand the strategy, or possibly it was bad execution.

I understand that after the Cone free throws there is still 7 seconds to go with the possibility of the ball ending up anywhere with anyone being in the position to shoot, so the age old debate of whether to foul or not with a 3 point lead has both pros and cons. The cons being, you made inadvertenly foul a player in the act of shooting, or you may foul too early.

I thought WSU coach Smith actually did the Bears a favor by calling the 4.2 second to go timeout. At this point, defensively you know there's only 4 seconds left. And although defense requires concentration and not risking a clock glance, the five guys on the floor should still be able to count to 2 in their heads. At that point there is only 2 seconds left in the game and now if the ball is still on the floor it makes complete sense to reach in for it and foul without any chance of the ballhandler getting a shot off. Someone here said that Madsen instructed the players to foul. I'm guessing this was at the final timeout. If that's the case JC didn't follow instructions. And of course, to a greater degree maybe JC shouldn't have been on the court in the first place.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

Didn't quite understand the strategy, or possibly it was bad execution.

I understand that after the Cone free throws there is still 7 seconds to go with the possibility of the ball ending up anywhere with anyone being in the position to shoot, so the age old debate of whether to foul or not with a 3 point lead has both pros and cons. The cons being, you made inadvertenly foul a player in the act of shooting, or you may foul too early.

I thought WSU coach Smith actually did the Bears a favor by calling the 4.2 second to go timeout. At this point, defensively you know there's only 4 seconds left. And although defense requires concentration and not risking a clock glance, the five guys on the floor should still be able to count to 2 in their heads. At that point there is only 2 seconds left in the game and now if the ball is still on the floor it makes complete sense to reach in for it and foul without any chance of the ballhandler getting a shot off. Someone here said that Madsen instructed the players to foul. I'm guessing this was at the final timeout. If that's the case JC didn't follow instructions. And of course, to a greater degree maybe JC shouldn't have been on the court in the first place.


Madsen essentially said Cone did not feel he could avoid fouling in the act of shooting.That could have been a 4 point play and we lose. This needs to be practiced not implemented on the fly. Its good to know that Madsen would foul in this situation as no other Cal coach would. I am anxious to see it
Go Bears!
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

Didn't quite understand the strategy, or possibly it was bad execution.

I understand that after the Cone free throws there is still 7 seconds to go with the possibility of the ball ending up anywhere with anyone being in the position to shoot, so the age old debate of whether to foul or not with a 3 point lead has both pros and cons. The cons being, you made inadvertenly foul a player in the act of shooting, or you may foul too early.

I thought WSU coach Smith actually did the Bears a favor by calling the 4.2 second to go timeout. At this point, defensively you know there's only 4 seconds left. And although defense requires concentration and not risking a clock glance, the five guys on the floor should still be able to count to 2 in their heads. At that point there is only 2 seconds left in the game and now if the ball is still on the floor it makes complete sense to reach in for it and foul without any chance of the ballhandler getting a shot off. Someone here said that Madsen instructed the players to foul. I'm guessing this was at the final timeout. If that's the case JC didn't follow instructions. And of course, to a greater degree maybe JC shouldn't have been on the court in the first place.
Cone did fine. He was a little behind the play because he was screened. He was never in position to foul. To try to foul he would have had to reach, and that could have led to a shooting foul, the worst of all possible worlds. But it is not Cone's fault he was screened, it was Aimaq's fault for being so deep and letting his man have a free crack at Cone. If a small was on the floor instead of Aimaq they could have switched on the screen or doubled Rice. And even with Aimaq on the floor Aimaq should have puts his arms up to distract Rice, not dropped for the meaningless rebound.

It seems to me it was poor design (having Aimaq on the floor) and then poor execution by Aimaq, everyone else did their job. But Madsen should put them in a better position. I don't care how much he "knows about basketball," he repeatedly gets strategy wrong. Strategy requires an analytic mind, not knowledge.




Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Is Mezarei or somebody else on staff maybe sharper than Madsen in this area? Then comes the time-honored question: Is Madsen wise enough to know what he doesn't know?
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Madsen has struggled with a variety of in game coaching decisions this season. It's an area that needs focus.

That said, I just rewatched the last sequence in regulation and I will have to respectfully disagree that Cone wasn't in a position to foul. What's taught is that when the ball is dribbled that's when you foul. Cone had two chances to foul when Rice put the ball on the floor. He didn't do it.

That said, I agree that Cal would have better been served with Newell or Brown on the floor instead of Aimaq
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've watched the replay as well. Cone definitely could have taken a foul. In fact, he actually used the last two seconds to leave his feet and come down. We were lucky he didn't come down on the shooter as he was going up. It could have been a four point play and a loss.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

Madsen has struggled with a variety of in game coaching decisions this season. It's an area that needs focus.

That said, I just rewatched the last sequence in regulation and I will have to respectfully disagree that Cone wasn't in a position to foul. What's taught is that when the ball is dribbled that's when you foul. Cone had two chances to foul when Rice put the ball on the floor. He didn't do it.

That said, I agree that Cal would have better been served with Newell or Brown on the floor instead of Aimaq
Reasonable people can disagree. I don't think the defender should foul unless their feet are in front of the offensive player. His feet were never there, so he needed to reach if he wanted to foul, which sets up bad possibilities. Given the choices I think it was right that he did not foul.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

Reasonable people can disagree.
...and unreasonable people can agree.
The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

I've watched the replay as well. Cone definitely could have taken a foul. In fact, he actually used the last two seconds to leave his feet and come down. We were lucky he didn't come down on the shooter as he was going up. It could have been a four point play and a loss.
Also Cone should know better than to leave his feet in the first place. He's not going to block a three point shot. Just stay with your man and not foul. Rice got a completely wide open look because he put Jalen in the popcorn machine.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

sluggo said:

Reasonable people can disagree.
...and unreasonable people can agree.

I agree!
Johnfox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is not Madsen's first rodeo in this situation. At Utah Valley, one of Madsen's players fouls the opponent who drains a 3 making it a 4 point play. The 4 point play won the other team the game. Video down below.

RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

blungld said:

sluggo said:

Reasonable people can disagree.
...and unreasonable people can agree.

I agree!
I disagree completely.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

Big C said:

blungld said:

sluggo said:

Reasonable people can disagree.
...and unreasonable people can agree.

I agree!
I disagree completely.
I agree to dis.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnfox said:

This is not Madsen's first rodeo in this situation. At Utah Valley, one of Madsen's players fouls the opponent who drains a 3 making it a 4 point play. The 4 point play won the other team the game. Video down below.


Wow great find. But yah a lot had to happen. I think in JC's situation he could have hacked as Rice dribbled towards the top of the key and a foul would have been called on the floor. Of course there is the threat the he would just rise up when being fouled. It is is a bit of a tough call. But done decisively I think it is low risk.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

Big C said:

blungld said:

sluggo said:

Reasonable people can disagree.
...and unreasonable people can agree.

I agree!
I disagree completely.

I've always found you to be reasonable, so I guess that is one date point to prove sluggo's theory.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

Johnfox said:

This is not Madsen's first rodeo in this situation. At Utah Valley, one of Madsen's players fouls the opponent who drains a 3 making it a 4 point play. The 4 point play won the other team the game. Video down below.


Wow great find. But yah a lot had to happen. I think in JC's situation he could have hacked as Rice dribbled towards the top of the key and a foul would have been called on the floor. Of course there is the threat the he would just rise up when being fouled. It is is a bit of a tough call. But done decisively I think it is low risk.
I just said lots of things can happen in a basketball play

madsen told his player to foul if given the opportunity. his player followed the coaches instructions and decided it was safe to foul, and they lost the game

Percentages are probably on the side of fouling, but crazy things happen and it's easier for all of us to play back the video in slow mo and make a judgement of a player in a 4 second play
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

RedlessWardrobe said:

Big C said:

blungld said:

sluggo said:

Reasonable people can disagree.
...and unreasonable people can agree.

I agree!
I disagree completely.
I agree to dis.
If you agree to disagree with an agreeable person, are you disagreeable?
The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!
Jeff82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My instructions would have been "If Rice gets the ball, foul him before he can get a shot off." I was looking at the play, and Cone had time to do that, he just didn't do it. Seems like Madsen's instructions weren't explicit enough. Fortunately, we won the overtime anyway.
Bear8995
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

Madsen has struggled with a variety of in game coaching decisions this season. It's an area that needs focus.

This is what worries me because of lot of the poor in game decisions are things he should know at this level.

Other concerns:

Newell has regressed quite a bit this year. Is that indicative of Madsen's player development skills?

We turn the ball over WAY too much on OOB plays. This is something that should happen maybe 1-2 times per season max.

We lose more than our fair share of close games. We are 1-7 in OT games and games decided by 3 points or less. I think this is a reflection of the poor in game coaching decisions.

We seem to go through at least 2-3 major scoring droughts per game. I think it is because of our Xs and Os offensively.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

Didn't quite understand the strategy, or possibly it was bad execution.

I understand that after the Cone free throws there is still 7 seconds to go with the possibility of the ball ending up anywhere with anyone being in the position to shoot, so the age old debate of whether to foul or not with a 3 point lead has both pros and cons. The cons being, you made inadvertenly foul a player in the act of shooting, or you may foul too early.

I thought WSU coach Smith actually did the Bears a favor by calling the 4.2 second to go timeout. At this point, defensively you know there's only 4 seconds left. And although defense requires concentration and not risking a clock glance, the five guys on the floor should still be able to count to 2 in their heads. At that point there is only 2 seconds left in the game and now if the ball is still on the floor it makes complete sense to reach in for it and foul without any chance of the ballhandler getting a shot off. Someone here said that Madsen instructed the players to foul. I'm guessing this was at the final timeout. If that's the case JC didn't follow instructions. And of course, to a greater degree maybe JC shouldn't have been on the court in the first place.


I agree I think smith made a mistake calling a timeout there. I think typically you have a better chance of getting a clean look at 3 when the defense is scattered then calling a timeout and letting the defense get set and have a plan (and or plan to foul).

I think smith also made two pretty large mistakes down the stretch.

First, he basically played prevent the last two minutes and slowed down his offense (rather than just running it like normal) and they took some poor shots down the stretch.

Second, he takes a timeout with about 30 seconds left in regulation up 1. He switches from zone to man (presumably to catch madsen off guard?) Madsen runs his staple 'screen for Tyson and then cone screens the guy switching' which once again works perfectly. Absolutely stupid to switch to man there when the zone was causing the bears problems the entire game.

Madsen gets a ton of flack for his in game strategy (a lot from me as well) but that was a brilliant call there. And also really smart to have two plays called out of the timeout for whether wsu went zone or man.

One last thing about end of game situations. We may need to come up with an alternative in bound play? I think the entire gym knows what's coming when they line up in their football formation. Or maybe not? Cause no opposing coach has stopped it yet (which is mind boggling(
Bear8995
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:


Madsen gets a ton of flack for his in game strategy (a lot from me as well) but that was a brilliant call there. And also really smart to have two plays called out of the timeout for whether wsu went zone or man.

One last thing about end of game situations. We may need to come up with an alternative in bound play? I think the entire gym knows what's coming when they line up in their football formation. Or maybe not? Cause no opposing coach has stopped it yet (which is mind boggling(
Agree. Great play design and call on the Tyson layup.

Re: the inbound play, I would just run it in reverse. Start everyone at the half court line and either run a triple screen for Cone or have guys take turns sprinting towards the ball. If I were the opposing coach, I would double team Cone as he is our best free throw shooter. I would leave Newell (56%), Kennedy (60%) or Fardaws (61%) open and let them catch the ball, then foul. I don't know why coaches don't teach their team how to foul at the ends of games (Madsen isn't the only one) and how to encourage passes to the weaker free throw shooters. It isn't hard. You just leave the poor free throw shooters open. You also don't double team and chase the ball around. Everyone stays with a man so you can foul right away.
Jeff82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It looked to me like they didn't know what to do against a zone. You need rapid ball movement, and an understanding of whether the zone is even man out (2-1-2/2-3) or add man out (1-2-2, 3-2, 1-3-1). Mostly it looked like they were playing odd man out 1-2-2, which needs to be attacked by passing to the free throw line and then passing out when the defense collapses. We don't move the ball fast enough to do that.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.