I didn't call it "NBA style". Rod Benson did.sluggo said:This has nothing to do what an NBA offense is. Watch any NBA game. NBA offenses involve multiple actions in every possession. These actions (cuts, screens on and off the ball, backdoors, etc.) involve reading and reacting after the first action. Just for fun I counted the number of assists in NBA games yesterday. The minimum was 48 and the maximum was 61. No team had fewer than 20.HearstMining said:Calling Stojakovic (or Wilkinson) a ball-hog is unfair. Per Rod Benson and according to many observers on this board, Cal ran primarily a "NBA style" four-out 1v1 offense. I interpret this as meaning:ac_green33 said:This. I don't think it was sustainable having them both on the same team. I remember at the end of the Georgia Tech game, when Wilkinson was absolutely rolling in front of his family, Andrej looked him off, turned the ball over, which led to Wilkinson getting hurt on the other end.Big C said:
He would pair better with Stojakovic if they could each have their own basketball.
Me, I would have preferred to keep Wilkinson, but they weren't a good pairing.
- Whomever has the ball has priority #1 and #2 to score. Only if they don't have a chance to do this do they pass. Passing to a teammate is only priority #3.
- The other four offensive players are hopefully trying to keep good spacing and maybe looking to rebound a missed shot - they're not trying to get in a better scoring position to receive a pass, so rarely try backdoor, give-and-go, etc. because it's just not how they've been coached.
- All these factors combine to drive a small number of assists.
Stojakovic and Wilkinson taking a lot of shots only indicates that they are better able (or think they are) to get decent shots than their teammates when going 1 v 1. Looking at the team, who was better? Not Campbell, not Petraitis, not Blacksher, not Tucker, and probably not JOJ.
Madsen's offense with a high post screen by a big who could not do anything if he received the ball and three others watching with no further actions is not NBA, it is Mark Fox.
Jeremiah Wilkinson to the portal
15,127 Views |
149 Replies |
Last: 7 mo ago by mbBear
Many people have called it an NBA offense, I believe including Madsen. It is not.HearstMining said:I didn't call it "NBA style". Rod Benson did.sluggo said:This has nothing to do what an NBA offense is. Watch any NBA game. NBA offenses involve multiple actions in every possession. These actions (cuts, screens on and off the ball, backdoors, etc.) involve reading and reacting after the first action. Just for fun I counted the number of assists in NBA games yesterday. The minimum was 48 and the maximum was 61. No team had fewer than 20.HearstMining said:Calling Stojakovic (or Wilkinson) a ball-hog is unfair. Per Rod Benson and according to many observers on this board, Cal ran primarily a "NBA style" four-out 1v1 offense. I interpret this as meaning:ac_green33 said:This. I don't think it was sustainable having them both on the same team. I remember at the end of the Georgia Tech game, when Wilkinson was absolutely rolling in front of his family, Andrej looked him off, turned the ball over, which led to Wilkinson getting hurt on the other end.Big C said:
He would pair better with Stojakovic if they could each have their own basketball.
Me, I would have preferred to keep Wilkinson, but they weren't a good pairing.
- Whomever has the ball has priority #1 and #2 to score. Only if they don't have a chance to do this do they pass. Passing to a teammate is only priority #3.
- The other four offensive players are hopefully trying to keep good spacing and maybe looking to rebound a missed shot - they're not trying to get in a better scoring position to receive a pass, so rarely try backdoor, give-and-go, etc. because it's just not how they've been coached.
- All these factors combine to drive a small number of assists.
Stojakovic and Wilkinson taking a lot of shots only indicates that they are better able (or think they are) to get decent shots than their teammates when going 1 v 1. Looking at the team, who was better? Not Campbell, not Petraitis, not Blacksher, not Tucker, and probably not JOJ.
Madsen's offense with a high post screen by a big who could not do anything if he received the ball and three others watching with no further actions is not NBA, it is Mark Fox.
Whatever it is it is not providing wins.sluggo said:Many people have called it an NBA offense, I believe including Madsen. It is not.HearstMining said:I didn't call it "NBA style". Rod Benson did.sluggo said:This has nothing to do what an NBA offense is. Watch any NBA game. NBA offenses involve multiple actions in every possession. These actions (cuts, screens on and off the ball, backdoors, etc.) involve reading and reacting after the first action. Just for fun I counted the number of assists in NBA games yesterday. The minimum was 48 and the maximum was 61. No team had fewer than 20.HearstMining said:Calling Stojakovic (or Wilkinson) a ball-hog is unfair. Per Rod Benson and according to many observers on this board, Cal ran primarily a "NBA style" four-out 1v1 offense. I interpret this as meaning:ac_green33 said:This. I don't think it was sustainable having them both on the same team. I remember at the end of the Georgia Tech game, when Wilkinson was absolutely rolling in front of his family, Andrej looked him off, turned the ball over, which led to Wilkinson getting hurt on the other end.Big C said:
He would pair better with Stojakovic if they could each have their own basketball.
Me, I would have preferred to keep Wilkinson, but they weren't a good pairing.
- Whomever has the ball has priority #1 and #2 to score. Only if they don't have a chance to do this do they pass. Passing to a teammate is only priority #3.
- The other four offensive players are hopefully trying to keep good spacing and maybe looking to rebound a missed shot - they're not trying to get in a better scoring position to receive a pass, so rarely try backdoor, give-and-go, etc. because it's just not how they've been coached.
- All these factors combine to drive a small number of assists.
Stojakovic and Wilkinson taking a lot of shots only indicates that they are better able (or think they are) to get decent shots than their teammates when going 1 v 1. Looking at the team, who was better? Not Campbell, not Petraitis, not Blacksher, not Tucker, and probably not JOJ.
Madsen's offense with a high post screen by a big who could not do anything if he received the ball and three others watching with no further actions is not NBA, it is Mark Fox.
There are many NBA offenses
I think what is being referred to is the common NBA offense which is 4 out, with a pick n roll (or pop) run on over half the possessions.
Most of the other plays are drive and kick and inside out, but there is a lot of clear outs where the star player(s) are in iso
We ran a ton of PnR with Tyson/Fardaws as they were perfect players for it.
The ideal players this season would have been Andrej or Wilkinson + Mady, but they just weren't good at it.
Theoretically Blacksher could have run it as he could shoot and pull up but he just didn't distribute too much.
I think what is being referred to is the common NBA offense which is 4 out, with a pick n roll (or pop) run on over half the possessions.
Most of the other plays are drive and kick and inside out, but there is a lot of clear outs where the star player(s) are in iso
We ran a ton of PnR with Tyson/Fardaws as they were perfect players for it.
The ideal players this season would have been Andrej or Wilkinson + Mady, but they just weren't good at it.
Theoretically Blacksher could have run it as he could shoot and pull up but he just didn't distribute too much.
sluggo said:Many people have called it an NBA offense, I believe including Madsen. It is not.HearstMining said:I didn't call it "NBA style". Rod Benson did.sluggo said:This has nothing to do what an NBA offense is. Watch any NBA game. NBA offenses involve multiple actions in every possession. These actions (cuts, screens on and off the ball, backdoors, etc.) involve reading and reacting after the first action. Just for fun I counted the number of assists in NBA games yesterday. The minimum was 48 and the maximum was 61. No team had fewer than 20.HearstMining said:Calling Stojakovic (or Wilkinson) a ball-hog is unfair. Per Rod Benson and according to many observers on this board, Cal ran primarily a "NBA style" four-out 1v1 offense. I interpret this as meaning:ac_green33 said:This. I don't think it was sustainable having them both on the same team. I remember at the end of the Georgia Tech game, when Wilkinson was absolutely rolling in front of his family, Andrej looked him off, turned the ball over, which led to Wilkinson getting hurt on the other end.Big C said:
He would pair better with Stojakovic if they could each have their own basketball.
Me, I would have preferred to keep Wilkinson, but they weren't a good pairing.
- Whomever has the ball has priority #1 and #2 to score. Only if they don't have a chance to do this do they pass. Passing to a teammate is only priority #3.
- The other four offensive players are hopefully trying to keep good spacing and maybe looking to rebound a missed shot - they're not trying to get in a better scoring position to receive a pass, so rarely try backdoor, give-and-go, etc. because it's just not how they've been coached.
- All these factors combine to drive a small number of assists.
Stojakovic and Wilkinson taking a lot of shots only indicates that they are better able (or think they are) to get decent shots than their teammates when going 1 v 1. Looking at the team, who was better? Not Campbell, not Petraitis, not Blacksher, not Tucker, and probably not JOJ.
Madsen's offense with a high post screen by a big who could not do anything if he received the ball and three others watching with no further actions is not NBA, it is Mark Fox.
ac_green33 said:This. I don't think it was sustainable having them both on the same team. I remember at the end of the Georgia Tech game, when Wilkinson was absolutely rolling in front of his family, Andrej looked him off, turned the ball over, which led to Wilkinson getting hurt on the other end.Big C said:
He would pair better with Stojakovic if they could each have their own basketball.
Me, I would have preferred to keep Wilkinson, but they weren't a good pairing.
They are/were the two best players on the team. A good coach would design a system to have them complement one another.
The Bears were bad offensively but HORRIFIC on Defense. That really was the problem.
socaltownie said:
The Bears were bad offensively but HORRIFIC on Defense. That really was the problem.
Yup. And to what do you attribute this poor defense? FWIW, I think we got incrementally better over the course of the season.
socaltownie said:
The Bears were bad offensively but HORRIFIC on Defense. That really was the problem.
Yes, #95 offense and #175 defense according to Ken Pom
4 out with a high pick and roll is a set and a first action. There is no NBA offense that stops with that, as Cal's offense more or less did. No to mention, as you said, that it did not fit Cal's personnel this year. Nor is it as effective in college where there are no rules on how the defense positions itself. Madsen is the fourth Cal coach in a row who cannot coach offense. It is wearing me down.HoopDreams said:
There are many NBA offenses
I think what is being referred to is the common NBA offense which is 4 out, with a pick n roll (or pop) run on over half the possessions.
Most of the other plays are drive and kick and inside out, but there is a lot of clear outs where the star player(s) are in iso
We ran a ton of PnR with Tyson/Fardaws as they were perfect players for it.
The ideal players this season would have been Andrej or Wilkinson + Mady, but they just weren't good at it.
Theoretically Blacksher could have run it as he could shoot and pull up but he just didn't distribute too much.
It was really easy to exploit our lack of size. We were short specifically at the 2 and the 4. So we always had to go over the high ball screen and with especially blacksheer, not to passion or purpose. Then, if the screened man hedged our rotation was bad and they could dunk city on a the pick and roll. We were VERY easy to game plan.Big C said:socaltownie said:
The Bears were bad offensively but HORRIFIC on Defense. That really was the problem.
Yup. And to what do you attribute this poor defense? FWIW, I think we got incrementally better over the course of the season.
sluggo said:4 out with a high pick and roll is a set and a first action. There is no NBA offense that stops with that, as Cal's offense more or less did. No to mention, as you said, that it did not fit Cal's personnel this year. Nor is it as effective in college where there are no rules on how the defense positions itself. Madsen is the fourth Cal coach in a row who cannot coach offense. It is wearing me down.HoopDreams said:
There are many NBA offenses
I think what is being referred to is the common NBA offense which is 4 out, with a pick n roll (or pop) run on over half the possessions.
Most of the other plays are drive and kick and inside out, but there is a lot of clear outs where the star player(s) are in iso
We ran a ton of PnR with Tyson/Fardaws as they were perfect players for it.
The ideal players this season would have been Andrej or Wilkinson + Mady, but they just weren't good at it.
Theoretically Blacksher could have run it as he could shoot and pull up but he just didn't distribute too much.
The NBA also has more space with so much better shooters at the 3 line which gives the PnR more options, and yes when the PnR breaks down the NBA teams can immediately go into a different action
The trouble with college, especially when you have a new set of players every year is coaches can't teach so many options and counters… and even if they can be taught there's not enough time for the players to execute seamlessly and instinctively
I would say that taking the most FT shots in the ACC is an impressive stat. Puts points on the board and gets opponents in foul trouble
There were a few games they would have won if they just made one or a couple more FTs. If we reached 16 or 17 wins the upward trend would have been more obvious
The trouble for next season is we lose Wilkerson who like Andrej are amazing at getting to the rack. There are only so many players that can be successful running iso, and with the right defense and defenders they can be shutdown
But I also think it's tough to play a Monty offense. Takes to long to teach and learn how to execute and players don't like it. Maybe if we recruited all euro and Australian players we could do it, but if so it wouldn't be Madsen as our coach
HoopDreams said:sluggo said:4 out with a high pick and roll is a set and a first action. There is no NBA offense that stops with that, as Cal's offense more or less did. No to mention, as you said, that it did not fit Cal's personnel this year. Nor is it as effective in college where there are no rules on how the defense positions itself. Madsen is the fourth Cal coach in a row who cannot coach offense. It is wearing me down.HoopDreams said:
There are many NBA offenses
I think what is being referred to is the common NBA offense which is 4 out, with a pick n roll (or pop) run on over half the possessions.
Most of the other plays are drive and kick and inside out, but there is a lot of clear outs where the star player(s) are in iso
We ran a ton of PnR with Tyson/Fardaws as they were perfect players for it.
The ideal players this season would have been Andrej or Wilkinson + Mady, but they just weren't good at it.
Theoretically Blacksher could have run it as he could shoot and pull up but he just didn't distribute too much.
The NBA also has more space with so much better shooters at the 3 line which gives the PnR more options, and yes when the PnR breaks down the NBA teams can immediately go into a different action
The trouble with college, especially when you have a new set of players every year is coaches can't teach so many options and counters… and even if they can be taught there's not enough time for the players to execute seamlessly and instinctively
I would say that taking the most FT shots in the ACC is an impressive stat. Puts points on the board and gets opponents in foul trouble
There were a few games they would have won if they just made one or a couple more FTs. If we reached 16 or 17 wins the upward trend would have been more obvious
The trouble for next season is we lose Wilkerson who like Andrej are amazing at getting to the rack. There are only so many players that can be successful running iso, and with the right defense and defenders they can be shutdown
But I also think it's tough to play a Monty offense. Takes to long to teach and learn how to execute and players don't like it. Maybe if we recruited all euro and Australian players we could do it, but if so it wouldn't be Madsen as our coach
We won 2 games in overtime. We lost 2 games in overtime. We won 1 game by 3. We lost 1 game by 3. If our opponents had made one or a few more free throws, we would have lost a few more games. 21 or 22 losses would have seemed like a big step back.
In every season there are games you could have won and games you could have lost. We did what we did.
I don't have data to back this up but will look to see if there are any studies on this...calumnus said:socaltownie said:
The Bears were bad offensively but HORRIFIC on Defense. That really was the problem.
Yes, #95 offense and #175 defense according to Ken Pom
I would venture how we got our offensive production played a part in the defense being so bad. Crashing hard on the offensive glass is 1.) exhausting 2.) high risk/reward (if you don't get it you are out of position, behind the play, and having to sprint back at a disadvantage) and when you are missing A LOT of shots, those things add up over the course of a game.
Right -- the NBA has its "defensive 3 seconds" rule that bars defensive players from spending more than 3 seconds in the lane unless they are closely guarding an offensive player. That creates more space in the lane and makes it easier to play 4-out or even 5-out and give the ballhandler the option of shooting a 3 or driving to the rim, as well as making PnR actions more effective. Can't just mimic that offense without taking into account the fact that a college defense can have a player or two planted in the lane for the entire possession.sluggo said:4 out with a high pick and roll is a set and a first action. There is no NBA offense that stops with that, as Cal's offense more or less did. No to mention, as you said, that it did not fit Cal's personnel this year. Nor is it as effective in college where there are no rules on how the defense positions itself. Madsen is the fourth Cal coach in a row who cannot coach offense. It is wearing me down.HoopDreams said:
Of course that is true, but a ton of our offense was from the FT line. Again we were #1 in the ACC.
So if that's a big part of your strategy you need to make your FTs
So if that's a big part of your strategy you need to make your FTs
BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:sluggo said:4 out with a high pick and roll is a set and a first action. There is no NBA offense that stops with that, as Cal's offense more or less did. No to mention, as you said, that it did not fit Cal's personnel this year. Nor is it as effective in college where there are no rules on how the defense positions itself. Madsen is the fourth Cal coach in a row who cannot coach offense. It is wearing me down.HoopDreams said:
There are many NBA offenses
I think what is being referred to is the common NBA offense which is 4 out, with a pick n roll (or pop) run on over half the possessions.
Most of the other plays are drive and kick and inside out, but there is a lot of clear outs where the star player(s) are in iso
We ran a ton of PnR with Tyson/Fardaws as they were perfect players for it.
The ideal players this season would have been Andrej or Wilkinson + Mady, but they just weren't good at it.
Theoretically Blacksher could have run it as he could shoot and pull up but he just didn't distribute too much.
The NBA also has more space with so much better shooters at the 3 line which gives the PnR more options, and yes when the PnR breaks down the NBA teams can immediately go into a different action
The trouble with college, especially when you have a new set of players every year is coaches can't teach so many options and counters… and even if they can be taught there's not enough time for the players to execute seamlessly and instinctively
I would say that taking the most FT shots in the ACC is an impressive stat. Puts points on the board and gets opponents in foul trouble
There were a few games they would have won if they just made one or a couple more FTs. If we reached 16 or 17 wins the upward trend would have been more obvious
The trouble for next season is we lose Wilkerson who like Andrej are amazing at getting to the rack. There are only so many players that can be successful running iso, and with the right defense and defenders they can be shutdown
But I also think it's tough to play a Monty offense. Takes to long to teach and learn how to execute and players don't like it. Maybe if we recruited all euro and Australian players we could do it, but if so it wouldn't be Madsen as our coach
We won 2 games in overtime. We lost 2 games in overtime. We won 1 game by 3. We lost 1 game by 3. If our opponents had made one or a few more free throws, we would have lost a few more games. 21 or 22 losses would have seemed like a big step back.
In every season there are games you could have won and games you could have lost. We did what we did.
Interesting breakdown of PnR in NBA vs College
Bottom line is Madsen likes to use it, as do other college coaches. But this year we don't have the personnel to run it successfully
We run the pick well and Mady rolls, but we rarely execute or even attempt the pass, and when we do pass it's usually at his feet.
Same thing when Martin ran it with Wallace and Ivan. Ivan ran it to perfection but would rarely get the pass. Wallace just mostly tried to get to the rack himself
Anyway, it's good to be talking about basketball instead of NIL and the portal
Bottom line is Madsen likes to use it, as do other college coaches. But this year we don't have the personnel to run it successfully
We run the pick well and Mady rolls, but we rarely execute or even attempt the pass, and when we do pass it's usually at his feet.
Same thing when Martin ran it with Wallace and Ivan. Ivan ran it to perfection but would rarely get the pass. Wallace just mostly tried to get to the rack himself
Anyway, it's good to be talking about basketball instead of NIL and the portal
BearSD said:Right -- the NBA has its "defensive 3 seconds" rule that bars defensive players from spending more than 3 seconds in the lane unless they are closely guarding an offensive player. That creates more space in the lane and makes it easier to play 4-out or even 5-out and give the ballhandler the option of shooting a 3 or driving to the rim, as well as making PnR actions more effective. Can't just mimic that offense without taking into account the fact that a college defense can have a player or two planted in the lane for the entire possession.sluggo said:4 out with a high pick and roll is a set and a first action. There is no NBA offense that stops with that, as Cal's offense more or less did. No to mention, as you said, that it did not fit Cal's personnel this year. Nor is it as effective in college where there are no rules on how the defense positions itself. Madsen is the fourth Cal coach in a row who cannot coach offense. It is wearing me down.HoopDreams said:
Of course I have no problem with improving our free throw shooting. Would it improve our chances? Certainly. But, no, we wouldn't have just won 2-3 more games if we hit a couple of free throws. Hitting one or two more free throws changes the complexion of the game. Maybe the other team is behind when they previously were ahead and so they play with more urgency. Maybe they run different plays. Maybe they press the action where they took the air out of the ball. Maybe they shoot a 3 (that we were terrible defending) instead of a 2. I know what you are saying and not to get on you personally, but this type of analysis that leads people to the conclusion that we are close to doing a lot better.HoopDreams said:
Of course that is true, but a ton of our offense was from the FT line. Again we were #1 in the ACC.
So if that's a big part of your strategy you need to make your FTsBearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:sluggo said:4 out with a high pick and roll is a set and a first action. There is no NBA offense that stops with that, as Cal's offense more or less did. No to mention, as you said, that it did not fit Cal's personnel this year. Nor is it as effective in college where there are no rules on how the defense positions itself. Madsen is the fourth Cal coach in a row who cannot coach offense. It is wearing me down.HoopDreams said:
There are many NBA offenses
I think what is being referred to is the common NBA offense which is 4 out, with a pick n roll (or pop) run on over half the possessions.
Most of the other plays are drive and kick and inside out, but there is a lot of clear outs where the star player(s) are in iso
We ran a ton of PnR with Tyson/Fardaws as they were perfect players for it.
The ideal players this season would have been Andrej or Wilkinson + Mady, but they just weren't good at it.
Theoretically Blacksher could have run it as he could shoot and pull up but he just didn't distribute too much.
The NBA also has more space with so much better shooters at the 3 line which gives the PnR more options, and yes when the PnR breaks down the NBA teams can immediately go into a different action
The trouble with college, especially when you have a new set of players every year is coaches can't teach so many options and counters… and even if they can be taught there's not enough time for the players to execute seamlessly and instinctively
I would say that taking the most FT shots in the ACC is an impressive stat. Puts points on the board and gets opponents in foul trouble
There were a few games they would have won if they just made one or a couple more FTs. If we reached 16 or 17 wins the upward trend would have been more obvious
The trouble for next season is we lose Wilkerson who like Andrej are amazing at getting to the rack. There are only so many players that can be successful running iso, and with the right defense and defenders they can be shutdown
But I also think it's tough to play a Monty offense. Takes to long to teach and learn how to execute and players don't like it. Maybe if we recruited all euro and Australian players we could do it, but if so it wouldn't be Madsen as our coach
We won 2 games in overtime. We lost 2 games in overtime. We won 1 game by 3. We lost 1 game by 3. If our opponents had made one or a few more free throws, we would have lost a few more games. 21 or 22 losses would have seemed like a big step back.
In every season there are games you could have won and games you could have lost. We did what we did.
This team more than most I have seen is exactly who they are. They finished 4th from the bottom of the conference. 4 of their 6 wins were against the three teams below us in the standings. The other 2 wins and the tournament win were against teams that were 8-12 in conference. We beat one team with a winning overall record and that was 17-15. Out of conference we were 6-0 against doormats. We were 1-1 against comparable opponents. We were 0-3 against better teams. In conference were were 4-0 against the bottom. 3-4 against teams within 2 games of us in the standings and 0-11 against everyone else. They beat every horrible team on the schedule (unlike last year). They split against every merely bad team on the schedule. They lost to every middling to good team on the schedule.
We had no surprising wins at all. We beat the teams below us. We won slightly less than half against comparable teams. We lost every game against anyone significantly above us. It would take much more than a couple free throws to break out of that.
Contrast that to last year's team who just majorly stunk out the joint at the beginning, losing to teams they had no business losing to, but actually played reasonably well in conference, beat 2 tourney teams, beat teams 2-4 in the Pac-12 standings, and beat teams with 26, 25, and 24 wins. You could see how they could clean some things up, get a reasonable start to the season, and actually compete for respectability.
14-19 and 6-14 is pretty much solidly who we were. If we kept everybody, which we don't appear to be doing, I could see us breaking into that 8-12 pack. I don't see an easy fix that gets us above that.
I am not asking for the Monty offense. But watching the NCAA tournament last weekend I did not see any as incompetent as Madsen's. I think every tournament team sets pindown screens for their best shooters. And they do something to get their best scorers the ball in good positions. Like Braun would overload one side with the goal of getting single coverage on the opposite side (the only thing his crappy offense did). It does not take that much.HoopDreams said:sluggo said:4 out with a high pick and roll is a set and a first action. There is no NBA offense that stops with that, as Cal's offense more or less did. No to mention, as you said, that it did not fit Cal's personnel this year. Nor is it as effective in college where there are no rules on how the defense positions itself. Madsen is the fourth Cal coach in a row who cannot coach offense. It is wearing me down.HoopDreams said:
There are many NBA offenses
I think what is being referred to is the common NBA offense which is 4 out, with a pick n roll (or pop) run on over half the possessions.
Most of the other plays are drive and kick and inside out, but there is a lot of clear outs where the star player(s) are in iso
We ran a ton of PnR with Tyson/Fardaws as they were perfect players for it.
The ideal players this season would have been Andrej or Wilkinson + Mady, but they just weren't good at it.
Theoretically Blacksher could have run it as he could shoot and pull up but he just didn't distribute too much.
The NBA also has more space with so much better shooters at the 3 line which gives the PnR more options, and yes when the PnR breaks down the NBA teams can immediately go into a different action
The trouble with college, especially when you have a new set of players every year is coaches can't teach so many options and counters… and even if they can be taught there's not enough time for the players to execute seamlessly and instinctively
I would say that taking the most FT shots in the ACC is an impressive stat. Puts points on the board and gets opponents in foul trouble
There were a few games they would have won if they just made one or a couple more FTs. If we reached 16 or 17 wins the upward trend would have been more obvious
The trouble for next season is we lose Wilkerson who like Andrej are amazing at getting to the rack. There are only so many players that can be successful running iso, and with the right defense and defenders they can be shutdown
But I also think it's tough to play a Monty offense. Takes to long to teach and learn how to execute and players don't like it. Maybe if we recruited all euro and Australian players we could do it, but if so it wouldn't be Madsen as our coach
I think Cal gots lots of free throws because they did lots of ISO drives to the basket, their top scorers (Stojakovic and Wilkinson) have no floater or short games, and their two bigs have shooting ranges of about two feet so they just threw themselves at the basket. I am not impressed by that stat. The offense was not good enough to beat anyone good.
he let stoj n wilkenson go iso which is good for their individual development but to the detriment of the team and development of other players. a good coach should be able to develop more then individual ISO skills for just 2 players.
And still Wilkinson wants to transfer out.
wow you guys are a tough crowd. guess there is nothing positive about our team or coaches
3Cats4CAL said:
And still Wilkinson wants to transfer out.
Well or gain leverage. Let's get through the next 2 weeks to understand fall out and all the moving pieces
Not saying Wilkinson returning is totally out of the question. But players know their value before entering the portal. He likely had several offers on the table before deciding to enter.socaltownie said:3Cats4CAL said:
And still Wilkinson wants to transfer out.
Well or gain leverage. Let's get through the next 2 weeks to understand fall out and all the moving pieces
Hoops. First thing is, I appreciate you. Really. I do. It is clear you love Cal basketball no matter what. You like watching the guys play win or lose. Cal could lose the next 100 games and you will be there. At the end of every year, whether we go winless or win the tourney, you are going to come in with we'll get em next year analysis showing how close we were to doing better. That is awesome. Everyone needs that.HoopDreams said:
wow you guys are a tough crowd. guess there is nothing positive about our team or coaches
But everyone also needs a countering sober analysis of the situation. I don't think it is healthy after a 14-19. 6-14, 15th place finish in conference year for there not to be some people that are going to opine that no, we weren't all that close.
You have declared several times as fact that Madsen is a great developer of talent. You have opined that we were one or two free throws away from three more wins. You have opined that Steph Curry is a super elite ball handler (true), and that Jerome Randle "is close to his level in ball handling" (?????).
I'm sorry, but that last one is crazy time and can only come from the finger tips of someone who is carried away with their fandom. I loved and love Jerome Randle, but there is nothing in the basketball realm that he does close to the level of Steph Curry. Given that Curry is one of the greatest basketball players the universe has ever produced, I don't think that is an insult to Jerome Randle. Is Randle a very good ball handler? Yes. Is he a great developer of players. I don't know. Never seen him do it. Is your idea a bad one? Absolutely not.
Regarding the free throw issue, beyond my argument, I'm not really sure why you picked this as a point of emphasis. Cal was not really poor in free throw shooting. They were well above average. They were 8th in the conference. By contrast, they were last in FG%. Third to last in 3pt FG%. 2nd to last in both opponent FG% and opponent 3pt FG%. If Cal finished in the top 20 nationally in FT%, they would have made 2/3 of a free throw more per game.
But the biggest problem with your argument there is that we won't have the same team. Namely Wilkinson won't be on it. No Wilkinson far outweighs the impact of any marginal improvement in free throws. In our 2 overtime losses Wilkinson was our leading scorer, scoring 36 and 25. In our 3 point loss, he was our second leading scorer, scoring 14.
Regarding the statement as fact that Madsen is a great developer of talent, that is just not clear. My opinion is that he has not proven to be a great or good developer of talent. He has not proven to be a bad developer of talent.
You have pointed to Jaylon Tyson, Jeremiah Wilkinson, and Andrej Stojakovic as proof that he is a great developer of talent.
First of all, great talent development is shown over much of the roster. You can't make everyone better, but you should make most better. Just like one failure to develop does not prove poor development, one success does not prove good development. Players improve. (especially guys who have their roles increase as all did, and guys who move from high school to college as Wilkinson did)
For instance. Matt Bradley significantly improved Mark Fox's first year. Mark Fox sucks.
Beyond Tyson, there was very little individual improvement last year, Cone and Kennedy arguably took a step back.
You say in Tyson Madsen took a role player and developed him into a first round pick. Tyson was not a role player. He played 29 minutes a game and scored double figures on a team that had 5 good scoring options. He then moved to a team where he was the best scoring option on a team that had 2 competent scoring options. His effective FG% dropped from 56.5% to 51.8%. His 3 point percentage dropped from 40% to 36%. His 2pt FG% dropped from 53.8% to 50.9%. His assists and turnovers both went up significantly. The main thing that happened with Tyson was that his usage rate drastically increased. As I've said before, someone has to score points. (reminder, Don Coleman was our leading scorer a few years back). Tyson most definitely improved. I think you are drastically exaggerating that improvement by not factoring in that he went from a team full of competent scorers to a team bereft of competent scorers.
I'll really take issue with crediting Madsen for developing Wilkinson. In games 5-8, Wilkinson played big minutes. He averaged 20.5 points a game over that stretch. Slightly more than he averaged after being made a starter (even though he still played substantially fewer minutes in that 4 game stretch. If you take out the games where Wilkinson played fewer than 20 minutes, his scoring totals were pretty consistent. Wilkinson is who he was when he walked in the door with a little added improvement for having experience in the college game. Wilkinson's main issue was his coach took 19 games to realize his best player was riding pine half to 2/3 of the time.
Stojakovic is straight up increase in playing time and usage rate. His effective FG% is virtually the same (down a hundredth of a point). His 2 point percentage is up slightly. His three point percentage is down slightly. His assists and turnovers both doubled. His performance dropped against better competition. I don't see the development there.
Many, many people are of the opinion that our schemes on both sides of the floor are either straight up poor or a really bad match for our personnel. But bottom line is, our offense is terrible. Our defense is beyond terrible (see conference field goal percentages listed above).
We finished in 15th place. We had zero good wins. So, I'm sorry, but no, there was not much positive this year. I don't think that is actually being a tough crowd. I think that is honesty.
Honestly, IMO, last year's team once they got going was quite a bit better than this year's team. What I was waiting for with this year's team was seeing if the staff could do what they (reasonably) couldn't do last year keep it together and build. That was the only thing that was going to be an improvement over last year. Well, they couldn't. Wilkinson was the key piece to that. And they are losing supporting pieces as well.
Again, I really appreciate your positivity. But we can't all just say that next year is going to be better every year. A lot of us don't see that right now. It will be proven out next year either way, but until that happens, here we sit at 14-19, 6-14, 15th place. I'm afraid most of us are at "show me".
BearlyCareAnymore said:Hoops. First thing is, I appreciate you. Really. I do. It is clear you love Cal basketball no matter what. You like watching the guys play win or lose. Cal could lose the next 100 games and you will be there. At the end of every year, whether we go winless or win the tourney, you are going to come in with we'll get em next year analysis showing how close we were to doing better. That is awesome. Everyone needs that.HoopDreams said:
wow you guys are a tough crowd. guess there is nothing positive about our team or coaches
But everyone also needs a countering sober analysis of the situation. I don't think it is healthy after a 14-19. 6-14, 15th place finish in conference year for there not to be some people that are going to opine that no, we weren't all that close.
You have declared several times as fact that Madsen is a great developer of talent. You have opined that we were one or two free throws away from three more wins. You have opined that Steph Curry is a super elite ball handler (true), and that Jerome Randle "is close to his level in ball handling" (?????).
I'm sorry, but that last one is crazy time and can only come from the finger tips of someone who is carried away with their fandom. I loved and love Jerome Randle, but there is nothing in the basketball realm that he does close to the level of Steph Curry. Given that Curry is one of the greatest basketball players the universe has ever produced, I don't think that is an insult to Jerome Randle. Is Randle a very good ball handler? Yes. Is he a great developer of players. I don't know. Never seen him do it. Is your idea a bad one? Absolutely not.
Regarding the free throw issue, beyond my argument, I'm not really sure why you picked this as a point of emphasis. Cal was not really poor in free throw shooting. They were well above average. They were 8th in the conference. By contrast, they were last in FG%. Third to last in 3pt FG%. 2nd to last in both opponent FG% and opponent 3pt FG%. If Cal finished in the top 20 nationally in FT%, they would have made 2/3 of a free throw more per game.
But the biggest problem with your argument there is that we won't have the same team. Namely Wilkinson won't be on it. No Wilkinson far outweighs the impact of any marginal improvement in free throws. In our 2 overtime losses Wilkinson was our leading scorer, scoring 36 and 25. In our 3 point loss, he was our second leading scorer, scoring 14.
Regarding the statement as fact that Madsen is a great developer of talent, that is just not clear. My opinion is that he has not proven to be a great or good developer of talent. He has not proven to be a bad developer of talent.
You have pointed to Jaylon Tyson, Jeremiah Wilkinson, and Andrej Stojakovic as proof that he is a great developer of talent.
First of all, great talent development is shown over much of the roster. You can't make everyone better, but you should make most better. Just like one failure to develop does not prove poor development, one success does not prove good development. Players improve. (especially guys who have their roles increase as all did, and guys who move from high school to college as Wilkinson did)
For instance. Matt Bradley significantly improved Mark Fox's first year. Mark Fox sucks.
Beyond Tyson, there was very little individual improvement last year, Cone and Kennedy arguably took a step back.
You say in Tyson Madsen took a role player and developed him into a first round pick. Tyson was not a role player. He played 29 minutes a game and scored double figures on a team that had 5 good scoring options. He then moved to a team where he was the best scoring option on a team that had 2 competent scoring options. His effective FG% dropped from 56.5% to 51.8%. His 3 point percentage dropped from 40% to 36%. His 2pt FG% dropped from 53.8% to 50.9%. His assists and turnovers both went up significantly. The main thing that happened with Tyson was that his usage rate drastically increased. As I've said before, someone has to score points. (reminder, Don Coleman was our leading scorer a few years back). Tyson most definitely improved. I think you are drastically exaggerating that improvement by not factoring in that he went from a team full of competent scorers to a team bereft of competent scorers.
I'll really take issue with crediting Madsen for developing Wilkinson. In games 5-8, Wilkinson played big minutes. He averaged 20.5 points a game over that stretch. Slightly more than he averaged after being made a starter (even though he still played substantially fewer minutes in that 4 game stretch. If you take out the games where Wilkinson played fewer than 20 minutes, his scoring totals were pretty consistent. Wilkinson is who he was when he walked in the door with a little added improvement for having experience in the college game. Wilkinson's main issue was his coach took 19 games to realize his best player was riding pine half to 2/3 of the time.
Stojakovic is straight up increase in playing time and usage rate. His effective FG% is virtually the same (down a hundredth of a point). His 2 point percentage is up slightly. His three point percentage is down slightly. His assists and turnovers both doubled. His performance dropped against better competition. I don't see the development there.
Many, many people are of the opinion that our schemes on both sides of the floor are either straight up poor or a really bad match for our personnel. But bottom line is, our offense is terrible. Our defense is beyond terrible (see conference field goal percentages listed above).
We finished in 15th place. We had zero good wins. So, I'm sorry, but no, there was not much positive this year. I don't think that is actually being a tough crowd. I think that is honesty.
Honestly, IMO, last year's team once they got going was quite a bit better than this year's team. What I was waiting for with this year's team was seeing if the staff could do what they (reasonably) couldn't do last year keep it together and build. That was the only thing that was going to be an improvement over last year. Well, they couldn't. Wilkinson was the key piece to that. And they are losing supporting pieces as well.
Again, I really appreciate your positivity. But we can't all just say that next year is going to be better every year. A lot of us don't see that right now. It will be proven out next year either way, but until that happens, here we sit at 14-19, 6-14, 15th place. I'm afraid most of us are at "show me".
good post. Criticizing Madsen seems to be verboten here.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
About development: it is not just gaining ability for ISO, it also means developing a game, setting others up, recognizing advantages, etcl.. No indication that MM coaches the latter at all.
I agree with most of what you said except that Andrej didn't develop. He improved dramatically. If you more than double your production without a drop in efficiency, that is a huge improvement. You also neglected to mention his FT shooting, which is a huge part of his game; he more than doubled his FTr and shot significantly better, netting a 6% increase in his TS% (which brought him from terrible to about average in efficiency). He went from a guy that other teams dared to shoot, to the focal point of opponent's defensive strategy.BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:
wow you guys are a tough crowd. guess there is nothing positive about our team or coaches
Stojakovic is straight up increase in playing time and usage rate. His effective FG% is virtually the same (down a hundredth of a point). His 2 point percentage is up slightly. His three point percentage is down slightly. His assists and turnovers both doubled. His performance dropped against better competition. I don't see the development there.
Agree to disagree. He was terrible in conference and disappeared a lot against better opponents. He became a focal point because even shooting 24% from 3 in conference he was our second best scoring option and de facto best until Madsen figured out who our best scoring option was.concernedparent said:I agree with most of what you said except that Andrej didn't develop. He improved dramatically. If you more than double your production without a drop in efficiency, that is a huge improvement. You also neglected to mention his FT shooting, which is a huge part of his game; he more than doubled his FTr and shot significantly better, netting a 6% increase in his TS% (which brought him from terrible to about average in efficiency). He went from a guy that other teams dared to shoot, to the focal point of opponent's defensive strategy.BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:
wow you guys are a tough crowd. guess there is nothing positive about our team or coaches
Stojakovic is straight up increase in playing time and usage rate. His effective FG% is virtually the same (down a hundredth of a point). His 2 point percentage is up slightly. His three point percentage is down slightly. His assists and turnovers both doubled. His performance dropped against better competition. I don't see the development there.
That is not to say I don't think he can be an excellent player. I just don't think he is there yet. He is clearly our best returning player at this point. I'd just rather he be our third or fourth option than our first.
What he's saying is that it's normal improvement from getting more reps and experience. Not necessarily a sign of Madsen's prowess as a developer of talent.
"wow you guys are a tough crowd. guess there is nothing positive about our team or coaches". I don't say there is nothing positive, but in math or physics or the like, an A is an A, and at our school, anything less means move on to something else.
I recall Stojakovic had a number of rough games during conference play after an injury but played better at the end.BearlyCareAnymore said:
Agree to disagree. He was terrible in conference and disappeared a lot against better opponents. He became a focal point because even shooting 24% from 3 in conference he was our second best scoring option and de facto best until Madsen figured out who our best scoring option was.
That is not to say I don't think he can be an excellent player. I just don't think he is there yet. He is clearly our best returning player at this point. I'd just rather he be our third or fourth option than our first.
The only aspect of his job in which Madsen has proven that he's really good is being face-of-the-franchise. And that may important in recruiting, too. Well see.
The rest of it is a work in progress. I am hopeful, but one reason for my hope is that Madsen is so likeable, I really want to see him succeed.
He needs to retain some more of this year's roster and he needs to bring in complimentary talent that will fit together to produce a winning team.
If he is such a good developer of talent, let's see how Devin Curtis and Lee Dort do next year (if they return). Them being "bigs", that should be right up Madsen's alley, right?
The offense looks terrible. If this is some sort of master plan to recruit talent to an "NBA style", okay fine, but we should start reaping benefits there pretty soon.
The defense was even worse, but I thought it improved over the course of the season (granted, it went from horrible to bad). Perhaps surprisingly to some, it takes a new roster a while to learn to play well together on defense. Sure, effort and athletic talent are vital, but communication, trust and knowledge of the system are also important. Dana Altman, with his ever-changing roster, usually looks like a better coach in February-March than he had been the previous November-December.
I'm not sure how good the Assistants are. That is always sort of a black box. But Madsen needs guys on his staff who will compliment his talents. This should eventually present in more wins. If his staff isn't that good, he needs to make changes.
Madsen started his tenure here with the program at an all-time low. It became immediately better -- how could it not? -- but now he needs to keep making progress.
New SI article about who Stanford should recruit from the portal transfer mentions no 1-Wilkinson. Wouldn't that be ironic !?!
amazingly detailed response to my post. thank you
Just to clarify, most of what I'm sharing is my personal opinion, except for stats like KenPom. I'm not trying to present anything as fact.
On Randle I'm don't know how "close" his ball handling is compared to Curry, but I do see him as an elite ball handler, and Cal may not always land the prototypical 6'4"-6'5" point guards so he can really help us (he is a skills trainer). His ability to move from one action into a combo, and then smoothly transition into another combo is rare. Even strong ball handlers tend to reset or pick up the dribble. Randle teaches how to keep attacking through that.
Also, to be clear I didn't expect this to be a Tournament season, but was just hoping to see meaningful progress. A one-game improvement is a step forward, but a 34 game jump would've signaled that we're trending. That's why I mentioned free throws as getting to the line was part of our offensive game plan, so missed FTs mattered more for us in the bigger picture.
And for what it's worth, I didn't bring up the travel, nor the injuries to guys like Omot, Andrej, Wilkinson, and Blackshur not because they didn't matter, but because every team deals with injuries. I'm not trying to make excuses.
Just to clarify, most of what I'm sharing is my personal opinion, except for stats like KenPom. I'm not trying to present anything as fact.
On Randle I'm don't know how "close" his ball handling is compared to Curry, but I do see him as an elite ball handler, and Cal may not always land the prototypical 6'4"-6'5" point guards so he can really help us (he is a skills trainer). His ability to move from one action into a combo, and then smoothly transition into another combo is rare. Even strong ball handlers tend to reset or pick up the dribble. Randle teaches how to keep attacking through that.
Also, to be clear I didn't expect this to be a Tournament season, but was just hoping to see meaningful progress. A one-game improvement is a step forward, but a 34 game jump would've signaled that we're trending. That's why I mentioned free throws as getting to the line was part of our offensive game plan, so missed FTs mattered more for us in the bigger picture.
And for what it's worth, I didn't bring up the travel, nor the injuries to guys like Omot, Andrej, Wilkinson, and Blackshur not because they didn't matter, but because every team deals with injuries. I'm not trying to make excuses.
he is certainly right about 2 things:3Cats4CAL said:
New SI article about who Stanford should recruit from the portal transfer mentions no 1-Wilkinson. Wouldn't that be ironic !?!
- he needs to improve his 3 point shooting (he's solid on pull up jumpers)
- he needs to get stronger (he's only a sophomore)
Featured Stories
See All
The Rodcast: Cal is 3-0
by Rod Benson
Sagapolutele Named Davey O'Brien National Quarterback Of The Week
by Cal Athletics
3 Bears Land Weekly Conference Honors
by Cal Athletics
128th Big Game Time Set
by Cal Athletics