KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

This year they are sending out a Memory Tips pdf with the season tickets to assist older Old Blues with the annual roster memorization task.

https://www.bu.edu/hospitality/files/2018/05/Seven_Tricks_to_Remembering_Names.pdf

*The team formerly known as the Oakland A's has been doing this for years.

---

Two seasons ago Cal MBB was easy on the memory. You just needed to say "Jaylon" and there was a great chance you were correct.

---

Mind if we call you Bruce?

Bobodeluxe said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

This year they are sending out a Memory Tips pdf with the season tickets to assist older Old Blues with the annual roster memorization task.

https://www.bu.edu/hospitality/files/2018/05/Seven_Tricks_to_Remembering_Names.pdf

*The team formerly known as the Oakland A's has been doing this for years.

---

Two seasons ago Cal MBB was easy on the memory. You just needed to say "Jaylon" and there was a great chance you were correct.

---

Mind if we call you Bruce?

---

lol I was thinking this was gonna be racist (as in Bruce Lee, which would have been funny too) -- but yes, Monty Python skits are always welcomed and hilarious!

KoreAmBear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

This year they are sending out a Memory Tips pdf with the season tickets to assist older Old Blues with the annual roster memorization task.

https://www.bu.edu/hospitality/files/2018/05/Seven_Tricks_to_Remembering_Names.pdf

*The team formerly known as the Oakland A's has been doing this for years.

---

Two seasons ago Cal MBB was easy on the memory. You just needed to say "Jaylon" and there was a great chance you were correct.

---

Mind if we call you Bruce?

---

lol I was thinking this was gonna be racist (as in Bruce Lee, which would have been funny too) -- but yes, Monty Python skits are always welcomed and hilarious!

---

I LOVE Monty Python and I often reference this very skit ("Michael? That could be confusing. Mind if we call you Bruce?") but that guy in blackface at the end WAS pretty racist.

So based on their last season, here is the roster in Win Shares per 40 min:

1. Camden PF .148
2. Ilic C .140
3. Dorsey SG .131
4. Petraitis SF .117
5. Dort C .096
6. Yeanay PF .089
7. Bell SF .077
8. Pippen CG .075
9. Ames PG .068
10. Campbell SG .028
11. Pavlovic PG -.107
12. Carr PG ?
13. Ruff SG ?

Here is our main players last year based on minutes played:
1. Stojakovic SG .117
2. Petraitis SF .117
3. Wilkinson SG .104
4. Sissoko C .146
5. Blacksher PG .063
6. Campbell SG .028
7. Dort C .096
8. Ola-Joseph F .102
9. Tucker G -.003

Team average was .090. Again .100 is average and a team of 5 average players would be expected to go .500 against average competition. With an average of .090 we would have been expected to go .450 or almost 15-18. We went 14-19.

So all kinds of caveats I know, treat this as just a "for amusement in the off-season exercise" but so far, indications are we could be improved. The average of our top 9 is .109 so we are looking at going .546 or 18-15 over last year's schedule. That does not include the possibility the freshmen make an impact or players improve.

Obviously wish we had Sissoko back, but we actually look talented up front, if a little light/small. The big question mark is at guard, especially PG. Madsen has brought in a lot of guards with potential, but we will need a couple to step up to being above average college players.

Good comparison but two caveats:

The numbers of the new players could reflect the quality of the opponents

Some of the new players didn't play enough minutes for their numbers to be meaningful.

stu said:

---

Good comparison but two caveats:

The numbers of the new players could reflect the quality of the opponents

Some of the new players didn't play enough minutes for their numbers to be meaningful.

---

There are a lot of caveats. However, 1. the player ratings are adjusted for strength of opponents and 2.most of the players with good ratings played significant minutes so the fact many of those with few minutes had bad ratings can be seen as a reason for tempered optimism.

calumnus said:

---

most of the players with good ratings played significant minutes so the fact many of those with few minutes had bad ratings can be seen as a reason for tempered optimism.

---

I agree with that optimism. And it makes sense that players with good ratings would play more.

Should we be worried that we still have two roster spots open this late in the transfer season? Or are there any quality players that are still shopping around over the summer?
What are we giving as a grade for this year's recruiting effort so far? I'll say B-
That's better than ESPN's "C" for the team last year. But not much.

I'll have to see the new guys play before I can speculate on how good we'll be. I'm sure there will be some surprises.

barsad said:

---

Should we be worried that we still have two roster spots open this late in the transfer season? Or are there any quality players that are still shopping around over the summer?
What are we giving as a grade for this year's recruiting effort so far? I'll say B-
That's better than ESPN's "C" for the team last year. But not much.

---

Always good to have at least one open scholarship in reserve. Ya never know. We really need to get that situation with UC and the international players fixed up.

Madsen needs to keep using his renowned people skills to activate some big donors.

barsad said:

---

Should we be worried that we still have two roster spots open this late in the transfer season? Or are there any quality players that are still shopping around over the summer?

---

According to Verbal Commits, there are 2,561 Division I players who entered the transfer portal, and about 1,350 of them have chosen a destination. So over 1,200 of them are still looking.

If you only care about headliners, there are still 7 players who (1) declared for the NBA Draft as an early entry candidate, (2) also entered the transfer portal, and (3) have not already committed to a new school or returned to their old school.

Boogie Fland, Arkansas to ??
PJ Haggerty, Memphis to ??
RJ Luis Jr, St. John's to ??
Camron McDowell, Division II NW Oklahoma State to ??
Brandon Walker, Montana State to ??
Jamir Watkins, Florida State to ??
Darrion Williams, Texas Tech to ??

Fland has already withdrawn from the draft and is reportedly looking at Florida. The other 6 have until May 28 to withdraw and retain their NCAA eligibility. Some of them probably will put off their pro dreams and play college ball next season.

Haggerty, Luis, Watkins, and Williams will be seeking sizable paydays if they withdraw and look to transfer to new schools. McDowell and Walker are lesser known and were not invited to the G League Elite Camp or the NBA Combine. So it's probably a matter of time before they withdraw.

Here are some highlight videos: one for McDowell and one for Walker.

Spencer Mahoney to Temple

HoopDreams said:

---

Spencer Mahoney to Temple

---

Afraid to compete.

Based on the tape of these two am surprised they thought they were ready for the NBA draft. They have skill but are not at that level yet. Still they would be very nice to have. I especially like Walkers size 6'7" and 250 lbs. he does great near the basket and rebounds well. Those 14.8 points a game also help. The ACC would be a step up for him. Thats what he needs to do is show he can do it against stronger conferences competition on a regular basis.

Thanks, I get it now.

calumnus said:

---

So based on their last season, here is the roster in Win Shares per 40 min:

1. Camden PF .148
2. Ilic C .140
3. Dorsey SG .131
4. Petraitis SF .117
5. Dort C .096
6. Yeanay PF .089
7. Bell SF .077
8. Pippen CG .075
9. Ames PG .068
10. Campbell SG .028
11. Pavlovic PG -.107
12. Carr PG ?
13. Ruff SG ?

Here is our main players last year based on minutes played:
1. Stojakovic SG .117
2. Petraitis SF .117
3. Wilkinson SG .104
4. Sissoko C .146
5. Blacksher PG .063
6. Campbell SG .028
7. Dort C .096
8. Ola-Joseph F .102
9. Tucker G -.003

Team average was .090. Again .100 is average and a team of 5 average players would be expected to go .500 against average competition. With an average of .090 we would have been expected to go .450 or almost 15-18. We went 14-19.

So all kinds of caveats I know, treat this as just a "for amusement in the off-season exercise" but so far, indications are we could be improved. The average of our top 9 is .109 so we are looking at going .546 or 18-15 over last year's schedule. That does not include the possibility the freshmen make an impact or players improve.

Obviously wish we had Sissoko back, but we actually look talented up front, if a little light/small. The big question mark is at guard, especially PG. Madsen has brought in a lot of guards with potential, but we will need a couple to step up to being above average college players.

---

This is the problem I see with this. If you actually want to use win shares to predict improvement, I think given we have had nearly complete turnover the last 3 years, you need to look at how past classes fared against their previous year's win shares as well as the type of player you are talking about. If you did this analysis at this time for last year's team, this is what you would have seen:

Campbell: .145
Blacksher: .141
Ola-Joseph: .138
Petraitis: .132
Sissoko: .123
Christian Tucker: .104
Stojakovic: .031
Dort: .086 (freshman stats. played 7 minutes total the year before Cal)
Wilkinson: N/A

What that indicates to me is that using your methodology last year's team was an improvement over last year's team as they walked in with better win shares than they ended up getting. It also indicates to me that they were comparable but a smidge better than the new guys this year. If you are going to use win shares to predict improvement, comparing this year's team to last years at the same point, you would not expect an improvement. Although, I would say that it doesn't indicate any of those things to be because taken by itself win shares has little predictive value and is close to a useless stat

First of all, look at our stats last year. I don't want to pick on Petraitis because he is a good player. But being tied with Stojakovic and substantially higher than Wilkinson doesn't pass the smell test for me. Also, based on incoming win shares, Stojakovic would be by far our worst newcomer and no one believed that at the time nor did that end up being true.

I would note some trends:

Last year, Stojakovic's win shares went up considerably. He was a major conference player who nearly doubled his use rate at Cal.

Sissoko's win shares went up a good amount. He was a major conference player who nearly doubled his use rate at Cal.

Dort went up a little, but he hardly played at Vandy. However, major conference transfer.

Everyone else went down, usually significantly. The win shares of every player from a lesser conference went down dramatically. I just don't think your numbers are apples to apples when you are comparing guys coming from lesser conferences to Cal.

For instance, Dorsey trails only Sissoko in win shares last year. However, Blacksher's win shares were significantly higher than Dorsey's the year before and then plummeted this year. Petraitis' were about the same as Dorsey in a substantially better conference the year before he came to Cal and his came down. Campbell was better than Dorsey in a conference on the same level and his production and win shares dropped a ton. Point being that if you did this exercise for last year's roster, you'd be starting at about the same place as this year's roster in terms of win shares. Which doesn't mean that this year's roster isn't an improvement - we shall see - but it does mean that win shares isn't showing that.

It's pretty consistent that when Cal takes transfers from lower conferences, their win shares drop. They all did last year. The year before our small conference transfers also dropped - Jalen Cone from .107 to .066, Kennedy from .123 to .086.