Losing to Wisconsin by 12 at home may feel good to some of you. But clearly we were outclassed and played like a deer in headlights from the opening tipoff. The outcome was never in doubt. Never.

Losing by 19 to Texas in NYC didn't feel so bad until they lost to Furd tonight at home. Now it's hard to see it as a good loss. In fact we might be in serious jeopardy of being swept by Furd this season. Definitely they will have an edge under the boards unless Kravish gets out of his long funk. Some of you are hoping that Bird will miraculously recover and be our messiah. I doubt it. Let's hope for a major whuppin' of Bakersfield St. this week to lift our flagging spirits before we face a very good UW team.

How do you classify furd's loss to DePaul

Congratulations. The QUINTESSENTIAL Cal post. We're 10-2, with losses to only top-10 teams and we are now "seriously in jeopardy" of the sky falling.

UrsaMajor;842428876 said:

---

Congratulations. The QUINTESSENTIAL Cal post. We're 10-2, with losses to only top-10 teams and we are now "seriously in jeopardy" of the sky falling.

---

^^^ Called it.

Also not clear that furd has a clear advantage under the boards. They were outrebounded by the longhorns, and got 47 of their 74 from 2 guards.

tenplay;842428864 said:

---

Losing to Wisconsin by 12 at home may feel good to some of you. But clearly we were outclassed and played like a deer in headlights from the opening tipoff. The outcome was never in doubt. Never.

Losing by 19 to Texas in NYC didn't feel so bad until they lost to Furd tonight at home. Now it's hard to see it as a good loss. In fact we might be in serious jeopardy of being swept by Furd this season. Definitely they will have an edge under the boards unless Kravish gets out of his long funk. Some of you are hoping that Bird will miraculously recover and be our messiah. I doubt it. Let's hope for a major whuppin' of Bakersfield St. this week to lift our flagging spirits before we face a very good UW team.

---

There's no such thing as a good loss. They just won't be considered as "bad" losses if Cal finds itself on the bubble come tourney time.

Civil Bear;842428884 said:

---

There's no such thing as a good loss. They just won't be considered as "bad" losses if Cal finds itself on the bubble come tourney time.

---

This. Losses are never good. These are the least bad losses.

UrsaMajor;842428876 said:

---

Congratulations. The QUINTESSENTIAL Cal post. We're 10-2, with losses to only top-10 teams and we are now "seriously in jeopardy" of the sky falling.

---

Well said!

We missed a lot of easy shots against Wisconsin. Some nights it just seems like there's a lid on the basket and everyone gets frustrated. The big takeaway from Monday night is that we were able to play with them and get about as many good shots as they did. We're capable of beating Wisconsin or anyone else if enough bounces go away. We're also capable of losing to about 200 other teams if enough bounces go against us.

Not sure you are right about losing to 200. Our defense should prevent it and so far it has. Particularly it gets us easier shots, as the ball comes our way without taking it out of the net. That way Cuonzo's pushing it works well.

south bender;842428959 said:

---

Not sure you are right about losing to 200.

---

Sagarin's 200th ranked team is about 11 points below us... statistically not impossible if we have a bad enough night.
Kentucky at #1 is about 16 points ahead of us, not impossible, but less likely.
Bakersfield is about 16 points below us, plus another 4 for home court advantage and we're 20 point favorites. I'd say we're safe for CSUB.

tenplay;842428864 said:

---

Losing to Wisconsin by 12 at home may feel good to some of you. But clearly we were outclassed and played like a deer in headlights from the opening tipoff. The outcome was never in doubt. Never.

Losing by 19 to Texas in NYC didn't feel so bad until they lost to Furd tonight at home. Now it's hard to see it as a good loss. In fact we might be in serious jeopardy of being swept by Furd this season. Definitely they will have an edge under the boards unless Kravish gets out of his long funk. Some of you are hoping that Bird will miraculously recover and be our messiah. I doubt it. Let's hope for a major whuppin' of Bakersfield St. this week to lift our flagging spirits before we face a very good UW team.

---

I didn't see much deer in the headlights from the start. I saw guys playing very tough defense and going toe to toe with Wisconsin until Wisconsin's depth took over. I saw guys who actually got good shots but missed them. None of it made me happy but the fact is Wisconsin is a more talented team that is well-coached and no one has beaten them except Duke playing at its highest level that day. So it's a loss that won't hurt if we pile on some other wins. We'll have plenty of chances against ranked teams in conference and we'll need to win some of those.

As for Texas, it's still not a bad loss and they're still a very good team. Stanford is capable of beating good teams and losing to bad ones.

south bender;842428959 said:

---

Not sure you are right about losing to 200. Our defense should prevent it and so far it has. Particularly it gets us easier shots, as the ball comes our way without taking it out of the net. That way Cuonzo's pushing it works well.

---

I keep hearing that Cal wants to push the tempo but I see guards walking the ball up the floor constantly. I don't really get that. Watch the Warriors for a team that actually pushes tempo, even in its half-court offense and even off of made baskets. Cal's offense looks pretty damned deliberate to me, and I thought we could have created more opportunity against Wisconsin if they had to react more quickly. OTOH we're thin and need everyone to rebound, so maybe Cuonzo just doesn't want to tire everyone out, which would make sense too.

bluesaxe;842429042 said:

---

I keep hearing that Cal wants to push the tempo but I see guards walking the ball up the floor constantly. I don't really get that. Watch the Warriors for a team that actually pushes tempo, even in its half-court offense and even off of made baskets. Cal's offense looks pretty damned deliberate to me, and I thought we could have created more opportunity against Wisconsin if they had to react more quickly.

---

As were the offenses under Marin's previous teams. The predictions of Cal going uptempo were not based on empirical evidence, just like the predictions of monster recruiting classes. I'm still hoping the latter comes true.

Actually, I thought we played well in spurts against the Badgers but, clearly, could not sustain those stretches. The good/bad: we got some pretty decent shots against a bigger, better team, many of which didn't drop, especially for Kravish still off from well within his usual effective range. As for Bakersfield, even a huge win does little for us. I don't expect much if anything from Bird this year but, hey, next man up. Moute a Bidias showed some flashes against Wisky.

We will see how it stands after the midway point in conference.

59bear;842429093 said:

---

Moute a Bidias showed some flashes against Wisky.

---

That slash to the hoop came out of nowhere! Very encouraging

59bear;842429093 said:

---

Actually, I thought we played well in spurts against the Badgers but, clearly, could not sustain those stretches. The good/bad: we got some pretty decent shots against a bigger, better team, many of which didn't drop, especially for Kravish still off from well within his usual effective range. As for Bakersfield, even a huge win does little for us. I don't expect much if anything from Bird this year but, hey, next man up. Moute a Bidias showed some flashes against Wisky.

---

We are a work in progress. We can get a lot better than we are right now. Yet, in the meantime we are 10-2 with losses to Top 10 teams? Recruiting is looking great? I see only reasons to be optimistic about the future of Cal basketball.

Also, 4 boards in 9 minutes!

He also should be taking more threes than Singer

At this point I'd say that Arizona, Utah, and UDub (maybe) are a bit ahead of the rest of the P12. Cal, Stanfurd, Colorado, and UCLA (maybe, if they learn to play together) are bunched at 4-7, and ASU, OSU, UO, WSU, and USC look to be BDW's. Cal can finish anywhere from 3rd (if UDub falters) to 7th, or, alternatively, anywhere from about 9-9 to 13-5 (pulling numbers out of my butt). If Bird comes back soon enough, with Cuonzo's coaching, I see us closer to the top of that bunch than the bottom.

UrsaMajor;842428876 said:

---

Congratulations. The QUINTESSENTIAL Cal post. We're 10-2, with losses to only top-10 teams and we are now "seriously in jeopardy" of the sky falling.

---

I dunno. Are you saying that we're going to win more than half our conference games? Because that's not what I'm seeing. Not sure about the "sky falling" but, to quote somebody else in this thread, it definitely looks like a "transition year".

R90;842428949 said:

---

We missed a lot of easy shots against Wisconsin. Some nights it just seems like there's a lid on the basket and everyone gets frustrated. The big takeaway from Monday night is that we were able to play with them and get about as many good shots as they did. We're capable of beating Wisconsin or anyone else if enough bounces go away. We're also capable of losing to about 200 other teams if enough bounces go against us.

---

With all due respect to you, I disagree 100%. When I got home after the game, I went back through the game tape I had recorded. Cal missed open looks, but Wisconsin missed more open looks. And we gave Wisconsin a lot more open looks than they gave us.

Cal had 13 open looks and made only 3 for baskets. Wisconsin had 23 open looks and made 11 for baskets. That is like spotting a good team 10-12 points, and Wisconsin is a good team. I don't think with our porous defense and our one-on-one style of offense we could beat Wisconsin on any night. Wisconsin also played mostly one-on-one, but they have the horses to play one-on-one. We don't. We do not have a single player who could start for Wisconsin, including our injured players on the bench who did not play in the game.

SFCityBear;842429647 said:

---

We do not have a single player who could start for Wisconsin, including our injured players on the bench who did not play in the game.

---

Pretty sure Ty Wallace would start for any team in the country not named Kentucky.

You really don't think Wallace could start for Wisconsin? NBA scouts disagree, but then what do they know. And, I know you cringe whenever anyone bounces the ball seeing as you think driving is anathema to basketball, but because of our limited # of outside shooters, Martin likes to have a penetrate and score or penetrate and dish offense. But then what does he know.

Civil Bear;842429086 said:

---

As were the offenses under Marin's previous teams. The predictions of Cal going uptempo were not based on empirical evidence, just like the predictions of monster recruiting classes. I'm still hoping the latter comes true.

---

They are pushing the ball regularly off of misses, but opponents are doing a better job of getting back on defense.
They are not running off of makes/dead balls, but there is really no point to that, especially given the lack of depth.

UrsaMajor;842429649 said:

---

You really don't think Wallace could start for Wisconsin? NBA scouts disagree, but then what do they know. And, I know you cringe whenever anyone bounces the ball seeing as you think driving is anathema to basketball, but because of our limited # of outside shooters, Martin likes to have a penetrate and score or penetrate and dish offense. But then what does he know.

---

There you go again. Trying to tell me what I think.

Bouncing the basketball can be good or bad, depending on the situation. Typically, the basketball with the best chance to beat the best teams is where a team runs motion or plays of some kind two thirds of the time, and one-on-one the rest of the time. Bouncing the ball also is used for dribble-handoffs, but then I'm sure you know that. The basketball with the least chance to win against the best teams is one that does not involve players other than the one dribbling the ball, because the defense can help or double-team if they know he won't pass the ball. Witness the two man team, Eastern Washington with their two great one-on-one players. They dribbled. They did not pass at all. Four flipping assists in that game for EWU! Four! And they lost.

And don't be shy. Tell us which NBA scouts you can name who said Ty Wallace could start for Wisconsin? Bo Ryan praised Wallace, but he did not say Wallace could start for him on this season's team. If Bo said it, I'd believe it.

The problem for Cal against Wisconsin was not all Wallace, and really not Wallace at all. It is that, as you said, we don't have good perimeter shooting, but it is also that we didn't have good shooting at all of any kind in that game. From looking at the tape, Wallace tried to make an assist 9 times in that game. Twice he was successful. Once, he threw the ball away for a turnover, and 5 times his teammates blew the shots, including a blocked dunk, a layup, 2 jumpers, and once where the player could not get a shot off. Also, in motion, his teammates do not cut hard, set effective screens, and do not get loose and open for shots, all of which is not Wallace's fault.

As far as your assessment of Martin's offense as "penetrate and score or penetrate and dish", well, I've seen the "penetrate and score", but I didn't see much "penetrate and dish" against the Badgers. Wallace drove into the paint 15 times against Wisconsin, scored five times on ten shots, committed 3 turnovers, was fouled once and missed his free throw, and tried only one dish to Kravish who missed the shot. Mathews penetrated 5 times for one basket, and was fouled on two attempts, missed one shot, made one, and had one shot blocked, and attempted no dishes on his drives. Singer penetrated 4 times, scored once, was fouled once, lost the handle for a TO, and missed a short J, but tried no dishes. Behrens drove in 3 times, scored once, lost the handle once for a TO, and once could not get a shot off, and he tried no dishes. My impression from the games since Syracuse is that when we penetrate, we are always looking to score. All of our assists vs Wisconsin came from perimeter players making passes on the perimeter or into the paint.

It is not easy to evaluate Wallace. He is playing point guard, and he has no one to pass to who is reliable in a big game. Wisconsin was a big game, and from where I sat, only Wallace and RMB really came to play. And Wallace stopped being Wallace in the second half. He had 15 points with 14 minutes to go, and scored only 2 points thereafter. He's being asked to take lots of chances, and makes lots of mistakes and turnovers. He is ranked 116th in Division One in assists, and 244th in assist to turnover ratio. I think it would be better for both Ty and Cal if he played SG or a wing, if we only had a point guard.

SFCityBear;842429707 said:

---

Bo Ryan praised Wallace, but he did not say Wallace could start for him on this season’s team. If Bo said it, I’d believe it.

---

Bo Ryan was never asked that question so that argument is a straw man. Nothing you cite sways me from my original statement that Ty Wallace would start for almost any team in the country not named Kentucky. And that includes Wisconsin. And he wouldn't have to play point for them either. You can dismiss him based on this one game if you wish, but your speculation that he would not start for Wisconsin is something that can ONLY be speculated on. When Ty does make an NBA roster that statement will look pretty silly in hindsight. Only time will tell, but your assertion would sound pretty ridiculous on face value to most basketball cognoscenti, and your criticism of him based on his performance against a quality opponent when we were undermanned and undersized seems very short-sighted.

Civil Bear;842429086 said:

---

As were the offenses under Marin's previous teams. The predictions of Cal going uptempo were not based on empirical evidence, just like the predictions of monster recruiting classes. I'm still hoping the latter comes true.

---

Well, iirc Martin said he wanted to go uptempo, which I would call empirical. I can see reasons not to do it with a team lacking depth, but I also can see reasons to do it with a team lacking an inside post game.

dal9;842429661 said:

---

They are pushing the ball regularly off of misses, but opponents are doing a better job of getting back on defense.
They are not running off of makes/dead balls, but there is really no point to that, especially given the lack of depth.

---

I am not seeing what you are describing. Wallace will push the ball at times, but there is no teamwide dedication to getting the ball out in transition on defensive rebounds that I can see. They were mostly walking the ball up the court against Wisconsin, which played into Wisconsin's game.

Civil Bear;842429119 said:

---

That slash to the hoop came out of nowhere! Very encouraging

---

Seems like the last couple of games good things have happened when Roger was in the game. He's defending actively and showing some flashes on offense.

bluesaxe;842429718 said:

---

Well, iirc Martin said he wanted to go uptempo, which I would call empirical. I can see reasons not to do it with a team lacking depth, but I also can see reasons to do it with a team lacking an inside post game.

---

Haven't we heard that at the beginning of every year for the last 15 or so?

Civil Bear;842429745 said:

---

Haven't we heard that at the beginning of every year for the last 15 or so?

---

Next year, Jerusalem

NewYorkCityBear;842429711 said:

---

Bo Ryan was never asked that question so that argument is a straw man. Nothing you cite sways me from my original statement that Ty Wallace would start for almost any team in the country not named Kentucky. And that includes Wisconsin. And he wouldn't have to play point for them either. You can dismiss him based on this one game if you wish, but your speculation that he would not start for Wisconsin is something that can ONLY be speculated on. When Ty does make an NBA roster that statement will look pretty silly in hindsight. Only time will tell, but your assertion would sound pretty ridiculous on face value to most basketball cognoscenti, and your criticism of him based on his performance against a quality opponent when we were undermanned and undersized seems very short-sighted.

---

I certainly respect and praise your support of Ty Wallace. He is a very good player. I mostly stated facts about Ty Wallace, his statistics and his national rankings. I am sorry that you took those facts as criticism. My opinion that Ty Wallace would not start for Wisconsin is pure speculation as you say, just as your opinion that “he would start for any team in the country not named Kentucky” is also speculation, wouldn’t you agree? Way over the top speculation, IMO. You are a big Cal fan, and I would expect no less. I don’t think it is being critical of Ty Wallace to say he would not start for Wisconsin. I think I’m being realistic on Wallace. Wallace is still an improving player. He still makes too many turnovers and/or not enough assists for a first class point guard, and many of those come from getting out of control every so often. On defense, he loses his man more often than a good defender would do, IMO.

I simply presented facts, point guard statistics. I said Wallace was 116th in the nation in assists, 244th in assist to turnover ratio. In the PAC12, he is ranked 8th in assists, 10th in assist/turnover ratio, and tied for 1st in most turnovers per game among point guards. As a point guard, you are supposed to run the team, be the quarterback, and make your teammates look better. He is not doing that nearly as often as he is scoring points.

Here are his PAC12 offensive rankings: 2nd in scoring, 15th in FG% (though ranked much higher among guards only), tied for 3rd in 3point FG%. He is also 3rd in the PAC12 in rebounding, which is incredible for a guard.

The Wisconsin guards, Jackson, Gasser, and Koenig, are not chopped liver. They don’t score or rebound as much as Wallace, but they all play under control, and I would say off their performance against Cal, holding down both Wallace and Mathews, and not allowing Singer or Chauca to do any damage at all, that all three Wisconsin guards might be better defenders than Wallace. Ty Wallace averages as many turnovers per game as all three Wisconsin guards put together. Gasser shoots free throws at 91%, Jackson 89%, Koenig at 80%, while Wallace shoots them at 56%. Ryan would have to decide if he wants all the additional rebounds and scoring that Wallace might bring, and live with more one-on-one play, occasional out of control play, some extra turnovers, poor free throw shooting, and lapses on defense that Wallace might also bring. Bear in mind that Jackson and Gasser are seniors with lots of experience and fit quite well into Ryan’s system. Wallace still has a year to grow and improve, which he will do. I could see a Wisconsin backcourt next season of Koenig and Wallace, and Ryan might be happy to have Wallace then. But Ty would not start for Wisconsin this season, in my opinion. I hope you will allow me to disagree.

I cited statistics not to be critical of Wallace, but to point out that Wallace might be playing the wrong position. He doesn’t have point guard statistics, he has a scorer’s statistics, and might do even better as a shooting guard or a wing. If I am critical, it might be of Sam Singer for not stepping up enough to be able to be the primary point guard, or of Cuonzo for not biting the bullet and moving Wallace to a more natural position.

I did not base my opinion on one game. We have played 12 games, two against good teams, and maybe two against average teams. The rest of the games were against cupcakes, pushovers, where our opponents were undermanned and undersized. The stats are from all 12 games, and they scream out to me that TW ought to be playing the two guard. Right now our team is playing without a quarterback, and is starting two shooting guards in the backcourt. We can beat only the average or weak teams with this philosophy. Maybe we will get better at it.

:beer:

hey SF

I like the thought and effort you put into your posts
however, except for the occasional posts that might necessitate it, my friendly advice is to practice writing a little more concisely

SFCityBear;842429970 said:

---

I certainly respect and praise your support of Ty Wallace. He is a very good player. I mostly stated facts about Ty Wallace, his statistics and his national rankings. I am sorry that you took those facts as criticism. My opinion that Ty Wallace would not start for Wisconsin is pure speculation as you say, just as your opinion that “he would start for any team in the country not named Kentucky” is also speculation, wouldn’t you agree? Way over the top speculation, IMO. You are a big Cal fan, and I would expect no less. I don’t think it is being critical of Ty Wallace to say he would not start for Wisconsin. I think I’m being realistic on Wallace. Wallace is still an improving player. He still makes too many turnovers and/or not enough assists for a first class point guard, and many of those come from getting out of control every so often. On defense, he loses his man more often than a good defender would do, IMO.

I simply presented facts, point guard statistics. I said Wallace was 116th in the nation in assists, 244th in assist to turnover ratio. In the PAC12, he is ranked 8th in assists, 10th in assist/turnover ratio, and tied for 1st in most turnovers per game among point guards. As a point guard, you are supposed to run the team, be the quarterback, and make your teammates look better. He is not doing that nearly as often as he is scoring points.

Here are his PAC12 offensive rankings: 2nd in scoring, 15th in FG% (though ranked much higher among guards only), tied for 3rd in 3point FG%. He is also 3rd in the PAC12 in rebounding, which is incredible for a guard.

The Wisconsin guards, Jackson, Gasser, and Koenig, are not chopped liver. They don’t score or rebound as much as Wallace, but they all play under control, and I would say off their performance against Cal, holding down both Wallace and Mathews, and not allowing Singer or Chauca to do any damage at all, that all three Wisconsin guards might be better defenders than Wallace. Ty Wallace averages as many turnovers per game as all three Wisconsin guards put together. Gasser shoots free throws at 91%, Jackson 89%, Koenig at 80%, while Wallace shoots them at 56%. Ryan would have to decide if he wants all the additional rebounds and scoring that Wallace might bring, and live with more one-on-one play, occasional out of control play, some extra turnovers, poor free throw shooting, and lapses on defense that Wallace might also bring. Bear in mind that Jackson and Gasser are seniors with lots of experience and fit quite well into Ryan’s system. Wallace still has a year to grow and improve, which he will do. I could see a Wisconsin backcourt next season of Koenig and Wallace, and Ryan might be happy to have Wallace then. But Ty would not start for Wisconsin this season, in my opinion. I hope you will allow me to disagree.

I cited statistics not to be critical of Wallace, but to point out that Wallace might be playing the wrong position. He doesn’t have point guard statistics, he has a scorer’s statistics, and might do even better as a shooting guard or a wing. If I am critical, it might be of Sam Singer for not stepping up enough to be able to be the primary point guard, or of Cuonzo for not biting the bullet and moving Wallace to a more natural position.

I did not base my opinion on one game. We have played 12 games, two against good teams, and maybe two against average teams. The rest of the games were against cupcakes, pushovers, where our opponents were undermanned and undersized. The stats are from all 12 games, and they scream out to me that TW ought to be playing the two guard. Right now our team is playing without a quarterback, and is starting two shooting guards in the backcourt. We can beat only the average or weak teams with this philosophy. Maybe we will get better at it.

:beer:

---