sluggo_Cal;842259295 said:

---

Going into the night he was shooting 32%(27% from 3) and had 11 assists (now he is up to 12) for the season. Sure he had a better attitude than Franklin, but his game was Franklinesque. He was great last night. Hopefully he will continue to be great. We disagree on the form; I am not the only one with that opinion. As to being quiet, I am not one who posts every five minutes. I don't take back that the ONLY part of his game right now that is pac 12 level is his shooting, and when that is off, as it had been, he is a liability.

Clearly, he is somewhere between his Stanford form and his Oregon form. I hope his Oregon form is closer to his future average.

Sluggo

---

I think its wise just to admit when you're wrong and move on.

what's the upside in defending yourself? Hoping that matthews fails and then telling us all "I told you so!"

ducky23;842259357 said:

---

I think its wise just to admit when you're wrong and move on.

what's the upside in defending yourself? Hoping that matthews fails and then telling us all "I told you so!"

---

Tell me what I am wrong about. He is not very good right now other than as a shooter. Previously he did not hit his shot. Last night he did. It is hard to know the future.

Sluggo

sluggo_Cal;842259364 said:

---

Tell me what I am wrong about. He is not very good right now other than as a shooter. Previously he did not hit his shot. Last night he did. It is hard to know the future.

Sluggo

---

Sigh

I expect that last night was an aberration and that Mathews will regress to the mean. The question, then, is what exactly is Mathews's mean?

In some earlier threads, it was mentioned that Mathews was a streaky shooter. As such, it's not unexpected he would go cold for a game (or even a stretch of games) or light up the scoreboards for a game (or a stretch of games).

Ideally, though, I'd like to see Mathews become more consistent and produce 10-15pts/game, 40+% FG (and 33+% 3pg%), 3-5 rebounds/game, and 1-2 assists/game in about 20 minutes each game. If he does, I think most on this board will be ecstatic.

In the meantime, I propose that we re-name the Ducks' home court to the Mathews's Night Arena.

sluggo_Cal;842259364 said:

---

Tell me what I am wrong about. He is not very good right now other than as a shooter. Previously he did not hit his shot. Last night he did. It is hard to know the future.

Sluggo

---

Ball handling, defense, rebounding. People have tried to reason with you but you are nothing if not stubborn. Now you're presenting ridiculous arguments just to save face. As others have said, it's okay to admit that you were wrong.

Holmoephobic;842259488 said:

---

Ball handling, defense, rebounding. People have tried to reason with you but you are nothing if not stubborn. Now you're presenting ridiculous arguments just to save face. As others have said, it's okay to admit that you were wrong.

---

I don't have to save face. Let's not forget this is an internet message board, that is, not important. I say what I think, which we agree could be misguided. I think his ball handling is poor and his defense suffers from lack of quickness. As an example, he could not keep the Oregon guards out of the lane. This is subjective. I don't think I am going to convince you. Twelve assists on the year suggests that he is not an incisive passer, but coupled with seven turnovers suggests that he is not a turnover machine.

Objectively, his rebounding numbers are good compared to Cal's other wings. I overlooked this. Credit to him. The main point is that he is a shooter. When they go in he is an asset, when they don't, then he is not. We don't know how often they will go in in the future.

Sluggo

sluggo_Cal;842259508 said:

---

I don't have to save face. Let's not forget this is an internet message board, that is, not important. I say what I think, which we agree could be misguided. I think his ball handling is poor and his defense suffers from lack of quickness. As an example, he could not keep the Oregon guards out of the lane. This is subjective. I don't think I am going to convince you. Twelve assists on the year suggests that he is not an incisive passer, but coupled with seven turnovers suggests that he is not a turnover machine.

Objectively, his rebounding numbers are good compared to Cal's other wings. I overlooked this. Credit to him. The main point is that he is a shooter. When they go in he is an asset, when they don't, then he is not. We don't know how often they will go in in the future.

Sluggo

---

Sluggo, you are one of my favorite posters, I agree with 99% of what you post on this board, but it was 100% before this thread.

I anticipated Bird being good, but since I first saw him in the open scrimmage, Mathews was the freshman I was most pleasantly surprised and excited about. He is a coaches' son, smart, with a scorer's mentality and a great, quick release. He went through an early freshman slump, and nothing went his way at Stanford, but I am confident this was just the first of many 30+ games he will have for us over his Cal career. It won't be every night, but that is because there are other scoring options on this team. However, if teams focus on stopping those other options, it is great to have someone who is capable of going off for 32.

grandmastapoop;842259037 said:

---

Matthews actually has very nice form

---

I would say it's very effective because the release point is so high (harder to block). But it's definitely not how anyone would ever teach a jumpshot, its funky looking and has a lot of moving parts. That Jordan can shoot like that with a high degree of accuracy is a credit to him. Crabbe, Bird, now those are players with textbook or near textbook shots.

Interesting fact is that Matthews averages roughly the same amount of assists per minute as Bird.

concernedparent;842259849 said:

---

I would say it's very effective because the release point is so high (harder to block). But it's definitely not how anyone would ever teach a jumpshot, its funky looking and has a lot of moving parts. That Jordan can shoot like that with a high degree of accuracy is a credit to him. Crabbe, Bird, now those are players with textbook or near textbook shots.

---

+1

calumnus;842259838 said:

---

Sluggo, you are one of my favorite posters, I agree with 99% of what you post on this board, but it was 100% before this thread.

I anticipated Bird being good, but since I first saw him in the open scrimmage, Mathews was the freshman I was most pleasantly surprised and excited about. He is a coaches' son, smart, with a scorer's mentality and a great, quick release. He went through an early freshman slump, and nothing went his way at Stanford, but I am confident this was just the first of many 30+ games he will have for us over his Cal career. It won't be every night, but that is because there are other scoring options on this team. However, if teams focus on stopping those other options, it is great to have someone who is capable of going off for 32.

---

Thanks. Usually you say what I am trying to say but in a more clear manner. I hope you are right, but I don't see how we can tell at this point. You mentioned studying statistics. How does one model a guy who misses all six outside shots against Stanford, comes back and hits a bundle against Oregon, and then misses all six again against OSU? And it is not like he shot well before the conference season started. He could be great but wildly erratic, or just wildly erratic. More games are needed to see. I worry about consistency with such a long shooting motion. He gets good lift, but I would certainly not call his release quick. And if his shot is off, he can't get points off drives likes Cobbs or Bird.

Sluggo