bluesaxe;842794937 said:

---

I think the point is more that the offense was generating open shots for players, which is what you want an offense to do. And since the OP was critical of the head coach's offensive accumen, it seemed a fair point. Skills coaching, individual coaching, those are different aspects of coaching. Sure, players can get better. But That's more a function of listening to what coaches have to say about your shot and then working on it in the offseason. There's limited time for practice in college ball and while I can envision all sorts of drills these guys also have to go to school.

I think one major issue is that we don't have very many good shooters. Mullins is steady as catch and shoot guy, not so much off the dribble (his three point percentage is 19 points higher than his overall shooting percentage). Singer isn't a good shooter and passes up shots he probably should still take. Coleman's shot looks pretty bad except for the occasional corner three. Domingo's shot is just broken. Moore and Bird are shooters, but Moore is struggling with decision making as a freshman PG (understandable, and he's trying to do it right), while Bird gets too passive. Maybe some of the reluctance to shoot has to do with the idea of a deliberate offense, I don't know. But you can see the lack of shooters in the free throw percentages as well.

I'm less impressed with Coleman than some. I think he's easy to defend now that people have seen his game. He's going to the hoop, probably the left side, and he's highly unlikely to pull up for a jumper or to pass the ball to take advantage of a collapsing defense. I expect him to have more problems as time goes on unless he makes adjustments. Hopefully the optimists are right about him.

---

+1 all around.

"Is it coaching?" Such a simple question and such a complex answer. As a D1 coach, I'd say Cuanzo is decent - average. He's better than Ernie Kent IMO, but no where close to the coach that Mike Montgomery was.

I will say, his teams play hard and they play together - which is a huge positive. He has them buying into defense. In a short time frame, his recruiting has been good (propped up by Rabb and Brown).

I do think he and his staff struggle to make in game adjustments. Not being able to deal with the doubling Rabb on the catch in the Virginia game is one example.

At this point, we know Cuanzo teams aren't going to play beautiful basketball, they are going to win ugly, like this past week.

drewstapes;842794984 said:

---

"Is it coaching?" Such a simple question and such a complex answer. As a D1 coach, I'd say Cuanzo is decent - average. He's better than Ernie Kent IMO, but no where close to the coach that Mike Montgomery was.

I will say, his teams play hard and they play together - which is a huge positive. He has them buying into defense. In a short time frame, his recruiting has been good (propped up by Rabb and Brown).

I do think he and his staff struggle to make in game adjustments. Not being able to deal with the doubling Rabb on the catch in the Virginia game is one example.

At this point, we know Cuanzo teams aren't going to play beautiful basketball, they are going to win ugly, like this past week.

---

Well Montgomery has about 30 more years of head coaching experience than Cuonzo.........with a few more years under his belt, maybe Cuonzo can narrow that gap a bit.

mikecohen;842794447 said:

---

I find your analysis a little overly negative. Wouldn't a similar analysis of the National Championship Bears team be even worse?...............

---

I think I can help you with an analysis of the Cal 1959 championship team, in case you aren’t completely familiar with them. That team led the nation in points allowed at 51 per game, held opponents to 35% shooting, while shooting 41% themselves. They averaged 10 more field goal attempts than their opponents, and they averaged 52 rebounds per game. ALL of the starters on the championship team were elite, compared to their peers at the time. Just take a look at them and their awards, remembering that All-American and All-Conference teams were FIVE man teams unlike today where 10-15 players are awarded spots on these imaginary teams:

Darrall Imhoff was named the Consensus First Team All-American Center. He was the best in the land that year.

Bill McClintock would go on to be named two-time First Team All Conference.

Denny Fitzpatrick was named First Team All-Conference, and was also named to the First Team All-Final Four in the NCAA Tournament.

Al Buch was named honorable mention All-American and Second Team All-Conference.

The fifth starter, Bob Dalton, was a defensive specialist. He did not win any of these prestigious honors. What he did do was shut down two of the best players in history, Oscar Robertson and Jerry West, on back-to back Friday and Saturday nights in the NCAA Final Four. Dalton shut down somebody every night. There was no better defender in the nation, unless it was Imhoff, Buch, or Bernie Simpson off the bench.

The rest of the rotation was composed of these players:

Bernie Simpson, the team’s best defender at the guard position.

Dick Doughty, an outstanding center in his own right, a high IQ player, a fine defender and rebounder, who could also put the ball in the basket. There was not much dropoff in talent when Doughty subbed in for Imhoff.

Jack Grout, a wiry small forward type, who was a good rebounder, and jump shooter, a veteran who started for much of the season until replaced by McClintock in the starting lineup.

Jim Langley, a solid player, good rebounder, and good shot.

I agree with your feeling that 6956bear’s post was somewhat negative, especially the part about Okoroh and Rooks just being “big with 10 fouls to give”. But I felt you were being overly negative about the ’59 team. I post this not to state that the ’59 team’s players were in any way better or more elite than the members of the current team. They were just elite compared to most of the rest of the nation’s players in 1959, and the coaches and sportswriters of 1959 recognized that by giving some of them prestigious post-season honors. However, that did not do justice to how good they were as a team, playing together. Probably none of them would have won those awards playing for some coach other than Newell. They were still elite players, but together they were even better, and NCAA title proved that.

bluesaxe;842794937 said:

---

I think the point is more that the offense was generating open shots for players, which is what you want an offense to do. And since the OP was critical of the head coach's offensive accumen, it seemed a fair point. Skills coaching, individual coaching, those are different aspects of coaching. Sure, players can get better. But That's more a function of listening to what coaches have to say about your shot and then working on it in the offseason. There's limited time for practice in college ball and while I can envision all sorts of drills these guys also have to go to school.

I think one major issue is that we don't have very many good shooters. Mullins is steady as catch and shoot guy, not so much off the dribble (his three point percentage is 19 points higher than his overall shooting percentage). Singer isn't a good shooter and passes up shots he probably should still take. Coleman's shot looks pretty bad except for the occasional corner three. Domingo's shot is just broken. Moore and Bird are shooters, but Moore is struggling with decision making as a freshman PG (understandable, and he's trying to do it right), while Bird gets too passive. Maybe some of the reluctance to shoot has to do with the idea of a deliberate offense, I don't know. But you can see the lack of shooters in the free throw percentages as well.

I'm less impressed with Coleman than some. I think he's easy to defend now that people have seen his game. He's going to the hoop, probably the left side, and he's highly unlikely to pull up for a jumper or to pass the ball to take advantage of a collapsing defense. I expect him to have more problems as time goes on unless he makes adjustments. Hopefully the optimists are right about him.

---

Yeah, I'd have Coleman practicing nothing but pull-up jumpers.

BERKELEY Don Coleman, a high-scoring guard from Augusta, Georgia, has signed a National Letter of Intent to play basketball at the University of California, head coach Cuonzo Martin announced Wednesday.

The 6-4, 188-pound Coleman is completing his freshman year at Lawson State Community College in Birmingham, Alabama, and will enter Cal as a sophomore with three years of remaining eligibility for the Golden Bears. He initially graduated from Butler High School in Georgia, where he finished as the school's all-time leading scorer with 2,071 points.

"We're excited to have Don join our program," Martin said. "Don is a fast and quick guard who can both distribute and score with the basketball. He is capable of making teammates around him better."

This past season at Lawson, Coleman paced the Alabama Community College Conference in scoring with 19.9 points per game in helping the team to a 17-12 record. He shot 47.7 percent from the floor, 42.6 percent from 3-point range and 76.9 percent from the free throw line while also contributing 4.4 rebounds and 6.2 assists per game.

SFCityBear;842795210 said:

---

I think I can help you with an analysis of the Cal 1959 championship team, in case you aren’t completely familiar with them. That team led the nation in points allowed at 51 per game, held opponents to 35% shooting, while shooting 41% themselves. They averaged 10 more field goal attempts than their opponents, and they averaged 52 rebounds per game. ALL of the starters on the championship team were elite, compared to their peers at the time. Just take a look at them and their awards, remembering that All-American and All-Conference teams were FIVE man teams unlike today where 10-15 players are awarded spots on these imaginary teams:

Darrall Imhoff was named the Consensus First Team All-American Center. He was the best in the land that year.

Bill McClintock would go on to be named two-time First Team All Conference.

Denny Fitzpatrick was named First Team All-Conference, and was also named to the First Team All-Final Four in the NCAA Tournament.

Al Buch was named honorable mention All-American and Second Team All-Conference.

The fifth starter, Bob Dalton, was a defensive specialist. He did not win any of these prestigious honors. What he did do was shut down two of the best players in history, Oscar Robertson and Jerry West, on back-to back Friday and Saturday nights in the NCAA Final Four. Dalton shut down somebody every night. There was no better defender in the nation, unless it was Imhoff, Buch, or Bernie Simpson off the bench.

The rest of the rotation was composed of these players:

Bernie Simpson, the team’s best defender at the guard position.

Dick Doughty, an outstanding center in his own right, a high IQ player, a fine defender and rebounder, who could also put the ball in the basket. There was not much dropoff in talent when Doughty subbed in for Imhoff.

Jack Grout, a wiry small forward type, who was a good rebounder, and jump shooter, a veteran who started for much of the season until replaced by McClintock in the starting lineup.

Jim Langley, a solid player, good rebounder, and good shot.

I agree with your feeling that 6956bear’s post was somewhat negative, especially the part about Okoroh and Rooks just being “big with 10 fouls to give”. But I felt you were being overly negative about the ’59 team. I post this not to state that the ’59 team’s players were in any way better or more elite than the members of the current team. They were just elite compared to most of the rest of the nation’s players in 1959, and the coaches and sportswriters of 1959 recognized that by giving some of them prestigious post-season honors. However, that did not do justice to how good they were as a team, playing together. Probably none of them would have won those awards playing for some coach other than Newell. They were still elite players, but together they were even better, and NCAA title proved that.

---

Very helpful and informative. Were all those guys essentially local (at least in California)? I know that Jim Barron was from Southern California. Also, it would be interesting to make the same quality comparison between essentially the same team the following year and the Ohio State Roster. It's that general comparison which led me to believe that that Golden Bears team was so much better than the sum of its parts.

oskidunker;842795258 said:

---

BERKELEY – Don Coleman, a high-scoring guard from Augusta, Georgia, has signed a National Letter of Intent to play basketball at the University of California, head coach Cuonzo Martin announced Wednesday.

The 6-4, 188-pound Coleman is completing his freshman year at Lawson State Community College in Birmingham, Alabama, and will enter Cal as a sophomore with three years of remaining eligibility for the Golden Bears. He initially graduated from Butler High School in Georgia, where he finished as the school's all-time leading scorer with 2,071 points.

“We're excited to have Don join our program,” Martin said. “Don is a fast and quick guard who can both distribute and score with the basketball. He is capable of making teammates around him better.”

This past season at Lawson, Coleman paced the Alabama Community College Conference in scoring with 19.9 points per game in helping the team to a 17-12 record. He shot 47.7 percent from the floor, 42.6 percent from 3-point range and 76.9 percent from the free throw line while also contributing 4.4 rebounds and 6.2 assists per game.

---

Somebody somewhere on this Board was recently throwing shade on Coleman's defense. I've been wanting to point in response to what he did against Fultz. I don't think it was him alone that night, but Fultz' production that night was an order of magnitude lower than his usual standard; and I got the distinct impression that our defense had everything to do with that - not the least Coleman's, what seemed to me extraordinary, sticking-to-him defense.

mikecohen;842795312 said:

---

Very helpful and informative. Were all those guys essentially local (at least in California)? I know that Jim Barron was from Southern California. Also, it would be interesting to make the same quality comparison between essentially the same team the following year and the Ohio State Roster. It's that general comparison which led me to believe that that Golden Bears team was so much better than the sum of its parts.

---

Roster of 19 players. Bill McClintock was from Milwaukee, Al Buch from Brooklyn, nine players were from Bay Area, and 8 from SoCal. The '59-'60 Cal team was even better as a team, but maybe not as good individually, and not as deep. Bob Dalton, Al Buch, Denny Fitzpatrick, Bernie Simspson, Jim Langley, and Jack Grout all had graduated. Tandy Gillis replace Dalton at forward in the starting lineup, Earl Schultz replaced Denny Fitzpatrick at guard, and first Jerry Mann, and then Bob Wendell replaced Al Buch at the point guard. Except dfor McClintock, I think they were all California players. The Bay Area was the capital of college basketball in those days. The Bears were ranked #1, and lost only one game prior to losing the NCAA Final to Ohio State. Ohio State was of course loaded with elite players, all five starters played in the NBA or ABA, and two were Hall of Famers Ohio State then proceeded to lose the next two NCAA Final games to Cincinnati, which had no real elite players that I remember, save maybe Paul Hogue.

Most players need some time to adjust to good D1 competition and Coleman is probably no exception. He has very good lateral quickness and, at least to me, has significantly upped his defensive intensity since the start of conference play. His outside shot remains questionable, but he is taking better angles on his drives to account for taller and more athletic players. Drawing fouls while attacking the rim is a talent/skill and one that does not exist on this team to much extent. Unfortunately Bird has all the skills for this, but not the mindset

bigcocoon007;842794157 said:

---

I mean I don't think Washington State is talented enough to stay with us until the end. Is Ernie a better coach than Conzo? Is Conzo under-achieving with this roster after losses to SDSU, Seton Hall and close wins against the Washingtons. Could Conzo possibly have under-achieved last year as well with top prospect Jaylen Brown?

---

How about grinding out an upset win vs SC, who has a highly regarded coach? This team is based on defense and is going to grind out its victories. BTW, Conzo now has the team in 4th by itself. Kent's team is in the rear view mirror.

SFCityBear;842795397 said:

---

Roster of 19 players. Bill McClintock was from Milwaukee, Al Buch from Brooklyn, nine players were from Bay Area, and 8 from SoCal. The '59-'60 Cal team was even better as a team, but maybe not as good individually, and not as deep. Bob Dalton, Al Buch, Denny Fitzpatrick, Bernie Simspson, Jim Langley, and Jack Grout all had graduated. Tandy Gillis replace Dalton at forward in the starting lineup, Earl Schultz replaced Denny Fitzpatrick at guard, and first Jerry Mann, and then Bob Wendell replaced Al Buch at the point guard. Except dfor McClintock, I think they were all California players. The Bay Area was the capital of college basketball in those days. The Bears were ranked #1, and lost only one game prior to losing the NCAA Final to Ohio State. Ohio State was of course loaded with elite players, all five starters played in the NBA or ABA, and two were Hall of Famers Ohio State then proceeded to lose the next two NCAA Final games to Cincinnati, which had no real elite players that I remember, save maybe Paul Hogue.

---

SFCityBear is a treasure trove of information. I can only add that the Ohio State team which defeated the Bears, 75-55 at the Cow Palace on March 19, 1960 did indeed have elite players , namely Jerry Lucas, John Havlicek, Mel Nowell, and Larry Siegfried. And a guy off the bench named Bobby Knight. I was at the Cow Palace that weekend. The night before, Cal defeated Cincinnati 72-69 and the Bearcats were led by the Big O and Paul Hogue. We held the Big O in check when he shot 4 for 16. Only his 10-12 FT shooting got him close to 20.

Californication;842794924 said:

---

I think our best offensive 5 should exclude Coleman and include Singer. Coleman may be a more aggressive player than Singer on the offensive end, but no one in the above lineup is going to distribute the ball to open shooters. Coleman basically looks for his own shot on a drive, or circulates the ball around. And he's a horrendous shooter, even compared to Sam. Moore is a good shooter, but he also drives purely create his own shot.

As a matter of fact, one of the biggest problems with our offense is that, just like last year, our staff has tried to solve scoring issues by putting in more selfish offensive players over distributors. When Moore and Coleman drive to the basket, a shot is going up, and more than half the time it's a missed shot/turnover leading to a fast break because our fastest players are now under the basket with no chance of slowing down the ball going the other way.

---

I think Moore has been much more creative, knowledgeable and successful with dishes off the drive than your assessment of it describes (which assessment is essentially zero); and, I might add, Coleman's 6+ assists/game in H.S. or Juco at least provides reason to hope that that function may emerge here as well - especially keeping in mind that he has 2+ more years eligibility.

Having watched the last three games closely, U$C on TV and the Washingtons at home, I think the offensive criticism of Martin is misplaced. We are executing the offense much better, and getting open looks, but we're not hitting a lot of them. We played the last three minutes against Wazzu about as well as they could be played, including the last two offensive sequences that ended with a Moore drive for two, and Bird burying a wide-open three for the game-winner. Prior to that Domingo also had an open three that would have given us a chance to put the game away earlier, but once again, he misfired. Fortunately, this team is so good defensively, we can beat most other teams even shooting poorly. We'll probably have to shoot better to beat Oregon, because I don't see us holding them in the 50s. But again, it's not on Cuonzo. The offense is getting the players good shots, but we're not hitting enough of them.

Stop it, WIAF. You're using facts, and we are in a post-fact, prejudice-only era.

roqmoq;842795453 said:

---

SFCityBear is a treasure trove of information. I can only add that the Ohio State team which defeated the Bears, 75-55 at the Cow Palace on March 19, 1960 did indeed have elite players , namely Jerry Lucas, John Havlicek, Mel Nowell, and Larry Siegfried. And a guy off the bench named Bobby Knight. I was at the Cow Palace that weekend. The night before, Cal defeated Cincinnati 72-69 and the Bearcats were led by the Big O and Paul Hogue. We held the Big O in check when he shot 4 for 16. Only his 10-12 FT shooting got him close to 20.

---

I'm not much of a treasure trove. The internet has more info than anyone will ever need.

Do you remember Joe Roberts? He started for the Buckeyes in that game and his 25-foot hook shots from the side were amazing. Reminded me of Doug Smart and Bruno Boin of the Washington Huskies, except that I don't think Roberts missed any against us. He went on to play for a while in the NBA, I think, and then became an assistant coach to Al Attles with the Golden State Warriors who won the NBA championship in 1974-75. In fact in the final game of the NBA championship series with the Bullets, Attles was ejected from the game, and Joe Roberts took over and coached the W's to the championship. He was the Warriors' coach of record for that championship game.

What I think we are seeing with all the recent posts is the fact that we have a limited pool of talent. A really good team will have more balance, and greater depth. I've been disappointed that we have seen little development of several players that were suppose to give us quality minutes. Specifically Singer, Domingo, and to a less degree Bird. Coleman came in highly rated, and is so far a one deminsional player who may grow.

mikecohen;842795481 said:

---

I think Moore has been much more creative, knowledgeable and successful with dishes off the drive than your assessment of it describes (which assessment is essentially zero); and, I might add, Coleman's 6+ assists/game in H.S. or Juco at least provides reason to hope that that function may emerge here as well - especially keeping in mind that he has 2+ more years eligibility.

---

I did not hear his preference (further proof that our coach has no clue), and perhaps "selfish" is a strong word. How about if I describe that type of player as someone that looks for their own shot rather than others? Every team needs guys like that, so I'm not saying there is no place for these players, especially Moore. But I'm saying that we need a balance of those that would rather pass than shoot, and those that would rather shoot than pass.

Getting back to the so called "strategy", the implication is that interior passes are tough. Not if the shooter is planning ahead and has his head on a swivel. Here's an equally dumb statement.... I'd rather have a tough interior pass to a blocked shot leading to a fast break.

Interesting sub-thread. I, too, remember the 59 and 60 teams, although I was a bit younger than you, SFCity. One thing about the stats you quote, however. While they clearly demonstrate how solid the 59 team was, they also show the differences in decades. The national champions averaged 41% from the field. Despite the fact that with the 3-point shot today's players are shooting from a lot farther away, even today's Cal team averages 44%, and no one would consider them a good shooting team. UCLA and Creighton lead the country at 53%, and there are 11 teams over 50%. This is not to say that the game is better today, but the great improvement in jump shooting over the decades means that both offenses and defenses need to change in some ways.

6956bear;842794233 said:

---

I am not a huge fan of how Cuonzo coaches offense but this team is not as talented as many believe. Rabb is elite. Nobody else is elite. Moore is going to be very good, but is short and young. Bird has never lived up to his billing. He has some talent but is not an elite player. Mullins is a good (not great ) shooter and limited but has experience and plays smart and under control. Kingsley can block shots and Rooks can rebound, but neither are elite but they are both big and that is 10 fouls to use. Singer, Domingo, Coleman, Roger are all complimentary players that fill specific roles. Singer and Domingo can really help down the stretch if the play like yesterday. Contribute some offense, but defend and rebound.

This team defends well and rebounds well. Shoots poorly generally and is a very poor FT shooting team. They are a defense first team that can play with most teams if they avoid turnovers and make a few 3's. Bird has to get more consistent. Rabb is doubled almost every time. Jabari has to make teams pay with some 3's. But they do defend and that keeps them in games. Particularly at home.

---

Short and young - not a good combo. I'm short and old - even worse combo.

Not sure I agree about Coleman. He's dynamic going to the hole (still has some decision-making issues) AND he seems to be a plus defender.

UrsaMajor;842796219 said:

---

Not sure I agree about Coleman. He's dynamic going to the hole (still has some decision-making issues) AND he seems to be a plus defender.

---

I'm in agreement with you on Don Ursa. I am of the opinion that he's rapidly improved from his early season appearances as well. As far as the "going to the hole" decision making goes, both our younger guard have issues with alternative plans of attack (a.k.a. Passing off the drive when it's not there). If they can continue to improve during the latter half of this season, that will help the offense immensely IMO.

bigcocoon007;842794157 said:

---

I mean I don't think Washington State is talented enough to stay with us until the end. Is Ernie a better coach than Conzo? Is Conzo under-achieving with this roster after losses to SDSU, Seton Hall and close wins against the Washingtons. Could Conzo possibly have under-achieved last year as well with top prospect Jaylen Brown?

---

Jesus Christ. If you're going to continuously question the ability of our D1 basketball head coach, at least spell his name right. He deserves at least that modicum of respect from an armchair critic. If you're unsure what his name is, google it.

UrsaMajor;842795874 said:

---

Interesting sub-thread. I, too, remember the 59 and 60 teams, although I was a bit younger than you, SFCity. One thing about the stats you quote, however. While they clearly demonstrate how solid the 59 team was, they also show the differences in decades. The national champions averaged 41% from the field. Despite the fact that with the 3-point shot today's players are shooting from a lot farther away, even today's Cal team averages 44%, and no one would consider them a good shooting team. UCLA and Creighton lead the country at 53%, and there are 11 teams over 50%. This is not to say that the game is better today, but the great improvement in jump shooting over the decades means that both offenses and defenses need to change in some ways.

---

If we ever mention the success of the Cal Championship team or Newell's other great teams, there is always someone who brings this up, the inevitable comparison with the modern team or Newell's players with the modern players, and I quite frankly am tiring of it. Shooting percentages are based on so many factors that, with all due respect, to flat-out say the shooters today are better is just not true. The eras are different and can not be compared by percentages. First of all, prior to the three point shot, players were more tightly guarded on average, because they were shooting from closer to the basket than they do now. The jump shot from 10-20 feet is becoming a lost art, as most teams focus on two shots, the three and the shot in the lane where you try and draw the charge. And those 10-20 foot shots are theoretically easier to make than a three, but you are usually defended, whereas on the three, unless you are playing a good defensive team, the shooter will not be defended as closely or as often, on average. Many players are slow to close out on the three, and many teams are so wrapped up in help defense, they often lose track of the shooter on the perimeter.

Another factor is today's defensive rules have changed to favor the offensive player. When I see poor Sam Singer having to let a point guard go by, because he is not allowed to hand check him, and then he chases after him with his arms and hands reaching for the sky, "going vertical", so he won't get called for any kind of hand check foul, it makes me laugh. I wonder if he yells, "Stop, don't shoot" or "Hallelulia" as the point guard flies by him.

The charge was not allowed in Pete Newell's day. You could not purposely crash into a defender and expect to get the defender called for a foul. Today they even have to put this silly semi-circle on the floor, and then put a camera on it to see if a defender was standing where he is allowed to stand. Even with all these phony rules, players of today still have trouble shooting basketballs.

Palming the ball is allowed in the modern game, but not in 1959. Palming the ball gives the dribbler an incredible tool to break down his defender. Most any ball handler today can break down his defender on the dribble, and once he gets past the defender, he theoretically can have an open shot if someone does not pick him up. Getting more open looks affects shooting percentage. Defenders today are so hamstrung by the rules, they might as well be playing handcuffed. It is to any modern player's great credit that he can sometimes by himself guard and stop anyone at all.

Another reason for higher shooting percentages is legs. Did you ever try and play 40 minutes and did you shoot as well in the 4th quarter as you did in the first quarter? The legs get tired if you play 40 minutes, and if the legs get tired, the shooting percentage can and does go down. Newell's players had to play 40 minutes with only a break for half time and free throws and one or two opponent time-outs at most. Today's players seldom play more than 3-4 minutes before there is either a media time out or a team time out. The ones that really make me laugh are the 5 minute breaks for the officials to review a tape to see if a shooter was behind a line or not. You and I are not youngsters, but I think we could play in today's game for 3-4 minutes, as long as they give us all those breaks in play to rest. Today, it is rare to see a player play a total of 40 minutes, and even then he is getting a lot of rest along the way with all the timeouts. All of these things contribute to the slightly higher shooting percentages of today.

Cal's 1959-60 team was not a good shooting team. They were average. They shot 41%, and the NCAA average that year was 41%. Cal today is not a good shooting team. They are shooting 44% currently. The NCAA average shooting percentage over the last 20 years has been steady at about 44%. The NCAA average three point shooting percentage since 1994 has been steady at 34%.

I think a better way to compare shooting from era to era is the free throw percentages, because the distance is the same in both eras, and there is no defense in both eras for a free throw. The issue of legs is still going to affect the older generation, but in free throws it is less than in jumpers or layups. In 1959, Cal shot them at 65%, and the NCAA average was 65%. They were not a good free throw shooting team, just average. The current Cal team shoots free throws at 65%, and the NCAA average is 69%, so Cal is not a good free throw shooting team. In fact the NCAA average for free throw shooting has been steady since 1965 at 69%, with a dip in the early 1990s. Only in the case of the college free throw, can we say that shooting has improved slightly since 1959, IMHO.

The biggest problem with our team is that we have 3 seniors that do not provide anything offensively: Singer, Moute a Bidias, and Domingo. Conceivably, these players should all be playing major minutes and contributing. Is some of that coaching? Sure.

But, when you one of these players on the court you offense is going to be limited. The other team can just use the defender guarding each of these players as an extra help defender (ie. Bogut guarding Tony Allen in 2015 playoffs). You need some outside shooters to stretch the defense or the court will simply get smaller. Oregon has 8 player shooting at 33% or higher from 3, we have 5 (with one being Hamilton who averages 2 mpg and another is Rabb). Jabari is not included in that number, but probably will be at season's end.

Most teams today play "4 out 1 in" offense to help space the floor. We could do that, but it would require us to keep Rabb around the perimeter which is not ideal. If we play Rabb at the 5, we are still only going to have 3 shooters that stretch the floor. Going forward, I think the coaches should look at giving Rabb the ball at the high post because it is harder to double.

btsktr;842797135 said:

---

The biggest problem with our team is that we have 3 seniors that do not provide anything offensively: Singer, Moute a Bidias, and Domingo. Conceivably, these players should all be playing major minutes and contributing. Is some of that coaching? Sure.

But, when you one of these players on the court you offense is going to be limited. The other team can just use the defender guarding each of these players as an extra help defender (ie. Bogut guarding Tony Allen in 2015 playoffs). You need some outside shooters to stretch the defense or the court will simply get smaller. Oregon has 8 player shooting at 33% or higher from 3, we have 5 (with one being Hamilton who averages 2 mpg and another is Rabb). Jabari is not included in that number, but probably will be at season's end.

Most teams today play "4 out 1 in" offense to help space the floor. We could do that, but it would require us to keep Rabb around the perimeter which is not ideal. If we play Rabb at the 5, we are still only going to have 3 shooters that stretch the floor. Going forward, I think the coaches should look at giving Rabb the ball at the high post because it is harder to double.

---

+1. There is absolutely a talent gap. I can't remember - is domingo a Martin or Monty recruit? We are still, it seems, working through that issue as much as anything. Would take a roster full of guys like Moore, Coleman and Kings all day. Would still like to see Roman get minutes - ultimately for the program that scholarship has to produce.

socaltownie;842797136 said:

---

+1. There is absolutely a talent gap. I can't remember - is domingo a Martin or Monty recruit? We are still, it seems, working through that issue as much as anything. Would take a roster full of guys like Moore, Coleman and Kings all day. Would still like to see Roman get minutes - ultimately for the program that scholarship has to produce.

---

I agree with you for the most part. With regard to Charlie Moore, he is a very good recruit but in my opinion is not ready to be a starting point guard in Pac-12 as a freshman (most aren't, remember if you are old enough how Lorenzo Romar schooled Keith Smith in an exhibition game when Smith was a freshman. Perhaps Singer should start at the point and Grant should be the off guard. Moore should be brought in off the bench for his offensive shooting skills; Moore is a liability on defense because of his size and continues to make freshman mistakes in driving into charges when he could dish off or take a jumper. He turns the ball over too much! He will probably be a very good point guard in time but is still making so many mistakes. Also, Coach Martin should bring in someone to help these kids make free throws!

Domingo was a 2014 recruit by Coach Martin: http://www.calbears.com/sports/2014/5/12/209494608.aspx

I'd like to see Roman get some minutes too.

Two words....."Sadly embarrassing" That's all

TexWoody;842797161 said:

---

I agree with you for the most part. With regard to Charlie Moore, he is a very good recruit but in my opinion is not ready to be a starting point guard in Pac-12 as a freshman (most aren't, remember if you are old enough how Lorenzo Romar schooled Keith Smith in an exhibition game when Smith was a freshman. Perhaps Singer should start at the point and Grant should be the off guard. Moore should be brought in off the bench for his offensive shooting skills; Moore is a liability on defense because of his size and continues to make freshman mistakes in driving into charges when he could dish off or take a jumper. He turns the ball over too much! He will probably be a very good point guard in time but is still making so many mistakes. Also, Coach Martin should bring in someone to help these kids make free throws!

Domingo was a 2014 recruit by Coach Martin: http://www.calbears.com/sports/2014/5/12/209494608.aspx

I'd like to see Roman get some minutes too.

---

Yup. I think by Soph or Junior year he will be special but right now he is getting worked over by guards who are bigger off the bounce.

wifeisafurd;842795429 said:

---

How about grinding out an upset win vs SC, who has a highly regarded coach? This team is based on defense and is going to grind out its victories. BTW, Conzo now has the team in 4th by itself. Kent's team is in the rear view mirror.

---

I don't think Enfield is "highly regarded." I think he upset Gerogetown (a school that rarely performs well in March) and was able to become famous overnight for doing so

bigcocoon007;842797175 said:

---

I don't think Enfield is "highly regarded." I think he upset Gerogetown (a school that rarely performs well in March) and was able to become famous overnight for doing so

---

And SDSU, who has probably been the best California school for most of the last 8 years or so.

6956bear;842794233 said:

---

I am not a huge fan of how Cuonzo coaches offense but this team is not as talented as many believe. Rabb is elite. Nobody else is elite. Moore is going to be very good, but is short and young. Bird has never lived up to his billing. He has some talent but is not an elite player. Mullins is a good (not great ) shooter and limited but has experience and plays smart and under control. Kingsley can block shots and Rooks can rebound, but neither are elite but they are both big and that is 10 fouls to use. Singer, Domingo, Coleman, Roger are all complimentary players that fill specific roles. Singer and Domingo can really help down the stretch if the play like yesterday. Contribute some offense, but defend and rebound.

This team defends well and rebounds well. Shoots poorly generally and is a very poor FT shooting team. They are a defense first team that can play with most teams if they avoid turnovers and make a few 3's. Bird has to get more consistent. Rabb is doubled almost every time. Jabari has to make teams pay with some 3's. But they do defend and that keeps them in games. Particularly at home.

---

This is a good and fair assessment. Martin has a lot of upside but his teams still lack the depth of talent needed to get to the highest levels. He can get there but it will be a slower road than people hoped.

Uthaithani;842797182 said:

---

This is a good and fair assessment. Martin has a lot of upside but his teams still lack the depth of talent needed to get to the highest levels. He can get there but it will be a slower road than people hoped.

---

+1. That is why I am interested to see what the 2017 and especially 2018 pieces bring as we see the kind of pieces of the puzzle he is trying to assemble.

Oregon has better players, they're playing at home where they haven't lost for 36 games, and they shoot the lights out and shut down or shaky offense. They have pounded every other team not named UCLA at home. Pretty tough to overcome.

Is Moore getting all that playing time based upon what he did against Irvine?