SFCityBear;842153538 said:

---

Southbender,

With all due respect, if Wallace, Kravish, and Solomon are starting as is projected by most fans, those three will be severely challenged to consistently outscore the man they are guarding night after night, and outscore him at all, let alone outscore him by five points. Solomon scored 9 points per game last year, Kravish 8, and Wallace 7. In order to outscore their opponents by 5, they would have to hold them to 4, 3, and 2 points respectively. One of the reasons we went to a zone was that we could not hold opponents down that well. Like last year, the primary scorers will have to make up the deficit of the bigs and Wallace all not scoring a lot, even if the three of them will have improved, which I expect they will.

The good thing about this year is there is plenty of potential from the new guards on campus. Still, you don't know if they will pick up enough of the system for Monty to trust them in games. Last year, we really needed someone to back up Crabbe. After Kreklow got hurt, it was up to Powers and the freshman Johnson. Johnson never progressed enough to get Monty's trust. Hopefully he puts it together this year. It is a no-brainer to predict that the five star recruit Jabari will get major minutes and probably start, but the rest of the recruiting class are three star recruits, and it is much less of a given that they will play major minutes.

Injuries could play a big factor. Kreklow, Cobbs and Behrens all rehabbing, and we don't know if they will be effective. Also, you could very likely see a lot of zone again, if the new players are not skilled enough to play man. Then you don't have a personal responsibility to outscore your man, because you don't have one, except on paper in the box score.

:gobears:

---

The issue re Solomon is whether the Syracuse game was a fluke or a portend. If it was a portend, Solomon may be a whole lot better than only improved.

OaktownBear;842153883 said:

---

See, this is the issue with looking at these things after the guys careers are over. You look at a guy like Childress, for example, and say Wow! Monty didn't start him as a freshman? Well, let's look at that.

I'm going to assume you don't think Childress should have started over Casey Jacobson. So I'll assume you think he should have replaced junior Julius Barnes. It's not a one to one comparison because Barnes was really a guard and Childress was more of a 3, so you'd have to move Jacobson to the 2 to make the switch. Barnes stats on the ball handling side are clearly much better than Childress, and Childress was much better rebounding. But Barnes AT THAT POINT was a much better scorer and much more efficient shooter. I don't think looking at the stats you can justify Childress starting unless you wanted to play bigger on the wing. (which may have been a factor because Monty did start Childress over Barnes 6 times).

Their minutes disparity was actually not that great (26/gm vs. 21)

Points:
Barnes - 10.9
Childress 7.8

FG%
Barnes - .417
Childress - .402

3pt
Barnes - 46-136/.338
Chilress - 22-80/.275

FT
Barnes - 81%
Childress - 69%

Assists:
Barnes 87
Childress 24

Turnovers:
Barnes 52
Childress 35

Rebounds:
Barnes 2.3
Childress 4.8

---

Nice to see some reasoning based on facts in this thread.

Go Bears!

OaktownBear;842153883 said:

---

See, this is the issue with looking at these things after the guys careers are over. You look at a guy like Childress, for example, and say Wow! Monty didn't start him as a freshman? Well, let's look at that.

I'm going to assume you don't think Childress should have started over Casey Jacobson. So I'll assume you think he should have replaced junior Julius Barnes. It's not a one to one comparison because Barnes was really a guard and Childress was more of a 3, so you'd have to move Jacobson to the 2 to make the switch. Barnes stats on the ball handling side are clearly much better than Childress, and Childress was much better rebounding. But Barnes AT THAT POINT was a much better scorer and much more efficient shooter. I don't think looking at the stats you can justify Childress starting unless you wanted to play bigger on the wing. (which may have been a factor because Monty did start Childress over Barnes 6 times).

Their minutes disparity was actually not that great (26/gm vs. 21)

Points:
Barnes - 10.9
Childress 7.8

FG%
Barnes - .417
Childress - .402

3pt
Barnes - 46-136/.338
Chilress - 22-80/.275

FT
Barnes - 81%
Childress - 69%

Assists:
Barnes 87
Childress 24

Turnovers:
Barnes 52
Childress 35

Rebounds:
Barnes 2.3
Childress 4.8

---

OK, but why on God's green Earth was Tony Giovacchini starting that season?

Stanford's three perimeter starters should have been Barnes (who started at PG the next season anyway), Jacobsen (who was a 2 his freshman and sophomore seasons), and Childress. Stanford would have been much better off limiting Giovacchini, a 30% shooter and a "nothing special" defender to < 5 mpg (remember, Chris Hernandez was a freshman that season, and a far better talent than Giovacchini). And they probably would have gotten much better than an 8-seed and a date with Kansas in the 2nd Round (upon which they were brutally defeated).


Here are Giovacchini's stats:

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/stanford/tony-giovacchini

antipattern;842153817 said:

---

As I recall lots of people were upset. I certainly remember thinking it was strange. And you're right that it didn't go very well!

But the question was *will* Bird start, not *should* Bird start. And I'm saying I'm sure he will start eventually, but I'm less certain that he starts his first game.

God, I wish college basketball had a summer league! This conversation is a clear sign that we have nothing useful to talk about :headbang

---

+1. Where is the like button when you need one?

tsubamoto2001;842154135 said:

---

OK, but why on God's green Earth was Tony Giovacchini starting that season?

Stanford's three perimeter starters should have been Barnes (who started at PG the next season anyway), Jacobsen (who was a 2 his freshman and sophomore seasons), and Childress. Stanford would have been much better off limiting Giovacchini, a 30% shooter and a "nothing special" defender to < 5 mpg (remember, Chris Hernandez was a freshman that season, and a far better talent than Giovacchini). And they probably would have gotten much better than an 8-seed and a date with Kansas in the 2nd Round (upon which they were brutally defeated).


Here are Giovacchini's stats:

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/stanford/tony-giovacchini

---

First of all, I think you are placing too much importance on starting. Giovacchini played 21 minutes a game. Second of all, I don't think you take into account roles guys play on a team. My view:

Stanford had tons of talent up and down the lineup. They did not need the point guard to always be the guy that always brought the most athletic ability or scoring.

Childress was just not "all that" yet. He was not a player that you just couldn't keep off the floor. And he was playing 21 minutes anyway.

Frankly, outside of Jacobson, that team had a lot of emotional players that I think Monty struggled with.

Barnes struggled with the leadership aspects of the point guard position most of his career, and melted down frequently bringing his own game down and impacting the rest of the team. IMO, Barnes was not the right guy to be the primary point guard on that team. (honestly, I don't think most Stanford fans at the time would have gone for the idea of giving Barnes more time at PG) I'd also guess that if Hernandez had been healthy the next year, Barnes would never have been the main PG.

Tony G.'s job was to stabilize that team and pretty much that was it.

I'm not going to argue with you about Hernandez. Obviously he was a much more talented player than Giovacchini. Did he have as a Freshman what Monty was looking for? I don't know.

But I don't think your issue with Monty is playing freshman or not. It is that you always want the best athlete/most talented guy, and Monty places more value in fulfilling roles than you do. (and I'm not arguing here which of you is right).

Cobbs/Smith was not about frosh. But I honestly think that bothers you more than it should. Cobbs was going to start in conference (unless he proved he wasn't capable). I'm pretty sure he would have told you that was his expectation if you could have talked to him privately. But, I think Monty likes to ease his point guards into the position. I think it is just a different strategy to get to the same place.

I think sometimes easing in works best, sometimes it doesn't - depends on the guys, depends on the team. Frankly, I wish Braun had used that strategy with Ubaka and started Midgley, taking some pressure off Ubaka and making him earn it. For one thing, I think he wouldn't have beaten Midgley out that year if made to earn it - I don't think he was ready. But maybe letting him have an adjustment period would have given us the Ubaka we wanted by the end of the year. As it was, we had two guys that looked like fish out of water all year trying to play positions they weren't (yet) suited to.

Has said that he is more open minded today than he was ten years ago about starting and playing freshman. Defense is always the challenge and it will be again for Bird. His ability to understand what Monty wants done defensively will determine his minutes this year.

OaktownBear;842154244 said:

---

First of all, I think you are placing too much importance on starting. Giovacchini played 21 minutes a game. Second of all, I don't think you take into account roles guys play on a team. My view:

Stanford had tons of talent up and down the lineup. They did not need the point guard to always be the guy that always brought the most athletic ability or scoring.

Childress was just not "all that" yet. He was not a player that you just couldn't keep off the floor. And he was playing 21 minutes anyway.

Frankly, outside of Jacobson, that team had a lot of emotional players that I think Monty struggled with.

Barnes struggled with the leadership aspects of the point guard position most of his career, and melted down frequently bringing his own game down and impacting the rest of the team. IMO, Barnes was not the right guy to be the primary point guard on that team. (honestly, I don't think most Stanford fans at the time would have gone for the idea of giving Barnes more time at PG) I'd also guess that if Hernandez had been healthy the next year, Barnes would never have been the main PG.

Tony G.'s job was to stabilize that team and pretty much that was it.

I'm not going to argue with you about Hernandez. Obviously he was a much more talented player than Giovacchini. Did he have as a Freshman what Monty was looking for? I don't know.

But I don't think your issue with Monty is playing freshman or not. It is that you always want the best athlete/most talented guy, and Monty places more value in fulfilling roles than you do. (and I'm not arguing here which of you is right).

Cobbs/Smith was not about frosh. But I honestly think that bothers you more than it should. Cobbs was going to start in conference (unless he proved he wasn't capable). I'm pretty sure he would have told you that was his expectation if you could have talked to him privately. But, I think Monty likes to ease his point guards into the position. I think it is just a different strategy to get to the same place.

I think sometimes easing in works best, sometimes it doesn't - depends on the guys, depends on the team. Frankly, I wish Braun had used that strategy with Ubaka and started Midgley, taking some pressure off Ubaka and making him earn it. For one thing, I think he wouldn't have beaten Midgley out that year if made to earn it - I don't think he was ready. But maybe letting him have an adjustment period would have given us the Ubaka we wanted by the end of the year. As it was, we had two guys that looked like fish out of water all year trying to play positions they weren't (yet) suited to.

---

I understand role allocation, but I'm a believer that getting your best players out there and having them go through growing pains is a better path to success than trotting out guys with less talent and no upside. Giovacchini offered nothing that season that was of any tangible value. Saying things like "he stabilized the team" is bad coach-speak that covers up favoritism to a tenured player. That ensures a mediocre (or less) result, IMO.

In regards to Ubaka and Midgley, that doesn't quite compare to Cobbs/Smith because RM was never a PG. Martin Smith is the guy Braun went to a times during Ubaka's first 2 seasons. RM started as the 1 his first season because Legans ditched us, but he was a PG in name only.

CalHoopFan;842154251 said:

---

Has said that he is more open minded today than he was ten years ago about starting and playing freshman. Defense is always the challenge and it will be again for Bird. His ability to understand what Monty wants done defensively will determine his minutes this year.

---

I rather like what Tony Franklin said to his freshmen players: "You're either a freshman or you're a football player." And lo and behold, they name a freshman as starting QB.

ykes :Monty

tsubamoto2001;842154306 said:

---

I understand role allocation, but I'm a believer that getting your best players out there and having them go through growing pains is a better path to success than trotting out guys with less talent and no upside. Giovacchini offered nothing that season that was of any tangible value. Saying things like "he stabilized the team" is bad coach-speak that covers up favoritism to a tenured player. That ensures a mediocre (or less) result, IMO.

In regards to Ubaka and Midgley, that doesn't quite compare to Cobbs/Smith because RM was never a PG. Martin Smith is the guy Braun went to a times during Ubaka's first 2 seasons. RM started as the 1 his first season because Legans ditched us, but he was a PG in name only.

---

I don't agree that is coach speak. I'll say it more directly. Barnes was a good 2 guard but at that point in his career was a terrible PG. He could not handle the position psychologically. No way you make that the primary role. As I said, maybe Hernandez. Honestly, I just don't remember how ready he was.

You and I are not far apart philosophically, but my difference with you, is I think you are too formulaic, which leads us to agree most of the time, but sometimes I think you don't put enough import on factors other than body types and skill sets. Midgley and Ubaka are a good example. I have to completely disagree about midgley, especially that year. He played PG in HS. He played PG his freshman year. I acknowledge that when he walks in the gym, you look at him and think 2. He shoots, and you think 2. But he wasn't comfortable without the ball in his hands. (that is understating it). I'm not sure he ever got fully comfortable, but he certainly wasn't that year. Ubaka, on the other hand was too tentative to be effective running the offense and looked more comfortable without the ball. So that year we ended up with a shooting guard that looked for all the world like a 2, but who was too tentative to shoot, and a PG who looked for all the world like a PG, but was too tentative to distribute or run the offense.

OaktownBear;842154348 said:

---

Midgley and Ubaka are a good example. I have to completely disagree about midgley, especially that year. He played PG in HS. He played PG his freshman year. I acknowledge that when he walks in the gym, you look at him and think 2. He shoots, and you think 2. But he wasn't comfortable without the ball in his hands. (that is understating it). I'm not sure he ever got fully comfortable, but he certainly wasn't that year. Ubaka, on the other hand was too tentative to be effective running the offense and looked more comfortable without the ball. So that year we ended up with a shooting guard that looked for all the world like a 2, but who was too tentative to shoot, and a PG who looked for all the world like a PG, but was too tentative to distribute or run the offense.

---

Yup.

There will be multiple moments this season when we think that Bird is maybe the greatest player we've seen at Cal this century. Granted those moments will probably all come when we have the ball...

Whether he starts, or not, isn't too important.

Big C_Cal;842155375 said:

---

There will be multiple moments this season when we think that Bird is maybe the greatest player we've seen at Cal this century.

---

Seeing as how this century is only about 11.5 years old, I think there's a good chance you may be right. Right now, that title probably goes to either Powe or Anderson.

Intermezzo;842155701 said:

---

Seeing as how this century is only about 11.5 years old, I think there's a good chance you may be right. Right now, that title probably goes to either Powe or Anderson.

---

Ah, I see you're a numbers guy... indeed, I didn't want to go too far back because, once ya get to Jason Kidd, fuhgeddaboutit. Still, to be one of Cal's best players over the past dozen years when still a freshman ain't bad.

Big C_Cal;842155782 said:

---

Ah, I see you're a numbers guy... indeed, I didn't want to go too far back because, once ya get to Jason Kidd, fuhgeddaboutit. Still, to be one of Cal's best players over the past dozen years when still a freshman ain't bad.

---

Well, better than Shareef would be very impressive IMO. I'm not even talking about anybody being better than Kidd ever. If we ever get a guy who seriously merits being in that conversation, well, I'm going to enjoy watching that guy a lot.

Kidd and Shareef were in a class by themselves (in the modern era), not only for Cal but for the Conference. Kidd was Kidd and Shareef won Conference PLAYER of the Year as a Freshmen. How often has that happened?

Intermezzo;842155784 said:

---

Well, better than Shareef would be very impressive IMO. I'm not even talking about anybody being better than Kidd ever. If we ever get a guy who seriously merits being in that conversation, well, I'm going to enjoy watching that guy a lot.

---

HoopDreams;842155854 said:

---

Kidd and Shareef were in a class by themselves (in the modern era), not only for Cal but for the Conference. Kidd was Kidd and Shareef won Conference PLAYER of the Year as a Freshmen. How often has that happened?

---

Kidd won as a soph, not as a freshman. Chris Mills won it Kidd's freshman year. Kidd was the first sophomore to win.

Shareef and Love are the only freshmen to win.

boredom;842155976 said:

---

Kidd won as a soph, not as a freshman. Chris Mills won it Kidd's freshman year. Kidd was the first sophomore to win.

Shareef and Love are the only freshmen to win.

---

He did not say Kidd won POY in his first year.

Go Bears!

boredom;842155976 said:

---

Kidd won as a soph, not as a freshman. Chris Mills won it Kidd's freshman year. Kidd was the first sophomore to win.

Shareef and Love are the only freshmen to win.

---

south bender;842155995 said:

---

He did not say Kidd won POY in his first year.

Go Bears!

---

For that matter, I said "this century" and Abdur-Rahim was soooooooooo 20th century...

Big C_Cal;842156216 said:

---

For that matter, I said "this century" and Abdur-Rahim was soooooooooo 20th century...

---

Yes, I know, but threads wander and the "he" I was referencing was not you.

I hope you are right, that Bird's play will have us comparing him favorably to Anderson and Powe...

Go Bears!

stanfurdbites;842152834 said:

---

Uncalled for and totally irrelevant. It doesn't bear a response but JT started freshmen when deemed appropriate. Pretty sure you're referring to Kline but just recently, he has started numerous freshmen like Keenan, Harper, Isi, Treggs, McClure, Jalil, McCain etc etc. I could go on and on and on.

---

+1

These snide JT remarks are SO ANNOYING.

Win games and everything about you is golden - how you recruit, eat breakfast, speak, hold practices, drive a car, treat people, work hard or not work too hard, etc.

Lose games and everything about you is garbage - how you recruit, eat breakfast, speak, hold practices, drive a car, treat people, work too hard or not enough, etc.

Seeing people continually attribute bad things to JT that aren't attributable to him, just because his final record was 3-9, is just discouraging. It's like how people act in witch hunts (anyone remember the McMartin preschool case in LA?) and reflects the worst in human nature - to overgeneralize and then make assumptions that aren't true based on that generalization.

JT started out great and then lost the ability to win - whether due to burnout, improvements in college coaching passing him by, or whatever. Who cares. He gave it his all and I respect him for that. It's good for our win/loss potential that he is gone and we have a new coach and we'll see what the new coach can do.

Don't pretend that Sonny is God's gift to creation whereas everything about JT was awful - if Sonny loses, everything about him will be cited as the epitome of bad, and if he wins, the opposite will occur.

All fans really care about is their team's wins and losses. They convert the win/loss record of their team into a "measure of goodness" and extend that to cover all kinds of things about the coach that may or may not be relevant (though there is of course some sort of connection).

I expect this kind of behavior on pro football boards etc. where the average fan is something of a meathead, but am disappointed to see it here.

YLS Bear;842159384 said:

---

+1

These snide JT remarks are SO ANNOYING.

Win games and everything about you is golden - how you recruit, eat breakfast, speak, hold practices, drive a car, treat people, work hard or not work too hard, etc.

Lose games and everything about you is garbage - how you recruit, eat breakfast, speak, hold practices, drive a car, treat people, work too hard or not enough, etc.

Seeing people continually attribute bad things to JT that aren't attributable to him, just because his final record was 3-9, is just discouraging. It's like how people act in witch hunts (anyone remember the McMartin preschool case in LA?) and reflects the worst in human nature - to overgeneralize and then make assumptions that aren't true based on that generalization.

JT started out great and then lost the ability to win - whether due to burnout, improvements in college coaching passing him by, or whatever. Who cares. He gave it his all and I respect him for that. It's good for our win/loss potential that he is gone and we have a new coach and we'll see what the new coach can do.

Don't pretend that Sonny is God's gift to creation whereas everything about JT was awful - if Sonny loses, everything about him will be cited as the epitome of bad, and if he wins, the opposite will occur.

All fans really care about is their team's wins and losses. They convert the win/loss record of their team into a "measure of goodness" and extend that to cover all kinds of things about the coach that may or may not be relevant (though there is of course some sort of connection).

I expect this kind of behavior on pro football boards etc. where the average fan is something of a meathead, but am disappointed to see it here.

---

+1

The word "fan" is derived from the word "fanatic", and connotes the probability of irrational and emotional behavior when it comes to a fan's team. It is the reason many exaggerate the quality of team and players, and attack anyone who would be rational in evaluating them. This is particularly true for fans of Cal, perhaps because we have seen so little success in terms of football and basketball championships over the last 60 years. We are starved for success, and lose our cool too easily when we don't get it. Perhaps Tedford's mistake was in giving us a few great seasons, a number one ranking, even if only for a few minutes, to raise our expectations so high. When he did not deliver the bacon in the end, he got vilified by many Cal fans. I enjoyed those early years, some great wins, and I thank him for that. It reminded me of earlier years, when we were pretty good, and going to Rose Bowls.

:gobears: