SFCityBear;842832691 said:

---

I don't understand this. Are we going to go through the same-old, same-old mantra that we are going to have an awful year because we don't have five or more top-ranked recruits?

I have gotten increasingly depressed over the last three seasons. The first year of Cuonzo, I saw he had no offense, and no defense either. He did teach some defensive skills, but the team way underachieved. Monty would have done better that year. The second year, we had over-the-top optimism because of the superstar recruits. For whatever reason, they failed to play together. One of them, Brown, showcased his athleticism, and did little else. The leader, Wallace, called his own number as well. As a result the other hot recruit, Rabb, seldom got the ball. I declared the coach missing in action, in my mind, on offense at least. The defense was better, I'll give him that. The third year was more of the same. A little excitement with the point guard, but still no offensive structure, and again Rabb did not see the ball, except when he went up and got it himself off the glass. Coleman out of control. Welle gave us some good minutes, as did Jabari. But in the end, there was OK defense but no offense again. I found myself watching games just to watch Grant Mullins play. A throwback 5-tool player with little support. I was not looking forward to watching any more games in Cuonzo's career. He proved he could not coach up the lesser players, nor could he get stars to play together.

All of a sudden, Cuonzo leaves, and now I'm getting interested again. A new life, so to speak. When I look at videos of the incoming recruits, I get a little juiced. All three of these kids, Harris-Dyson, Justice Sueing, and Grant Anticevich, look like they can play a little basketball. (Videos only show offense, half of what is basketball, so keep that in mind) All three can take it to the basket, and Sueing and Anticevich can shoot mid-range jumpers and threes. All three handle the ball well, look to pass the ball, and all three look to have good anticipation on rebounds. All three look to pass the ball up the floor instead of dribble it, so maybe we can start fast breaking again, something that was missing much of the Cuonzo years. JHD can play both guard spots at least, Sueing looks like he can easily play SG and SF, and Anticevich looks like he can play any position, or at least 4 of them. Great range, mobility. If he gets a rebound, he plays point guard with the ball, and runs the offense, and he gets a lot of assists.

Of the returning players, I expect Okoroh to be even better this season, and I like that he did not follow Cuonzo to Missouri. I think it might show which coach he prefers, which one has helped him the most to develop. I look forward to seeing Lee play, on a team where he will have a lot of responsibility. I look forward to seeing if Coleman can play more within himself. I like his aggressiveness on offense and defense. I expect that Welle will improve some, and will be a contributor. He was a kid who was thrilled just to make this team, and now he has a real shot to contribute. If this is the roster, with no additions, then kids like Davis, Chauca, Hamilton, Koko, and King also may contribute. They are all working to improve, so I'm looking forward to this season, for the first time in nearly two years.

The question mark for me is can Jones coach? That will be the key to any success we have this season. With no real stars other than perhaps Lee, the coach might be able to teach these kids some real teamwork, and open up the floor, which has been clogged for three years. Jones obviously can teach the big guys, so who will coach the guards, especially the point guards? I'm looking forward to finding all this out.

So let's not drown ourselves in sorrow and pity. Go out and enjoy this season for what it is. We are rebuilding with a new coach. And if it doesn't turn out well, just remember that both Newell and Montgomery started out with supposedly better talent and did not have great first years. Newell had a losing season, but went on to win 4 conference titles and an NCAA title. Hope springs eternal.

---

The pessimism comes from the assumption that we're on the treadmill again: Recruiter-who-can't-coach (Martin), coach-who-can't-recruit (Monty), recruiter-who-can't-coach (Braun), recruiter-who-can't-coach-and-puts-us-on-probation (Bozeman), recruiter-who-can't-coach (Campy), etc., etc., etc. Everyone assumes that Jones is flawed in one way or another, and are just waiting to see which it is. I get that. On the other hand, the alternatives appeared to me to be similarly flawed, once it was clear that Bennett wasn't interested in the job. Losing Moore is a blow, particularly after the good things he had to say about Jones. I'm willing to give the new coach a chance to regroup, especially given his ties to the area, and the fact that I now view Martin as a three-year detour that accomplished very little in terms of the path of the basketball program. But I get the pessimism.

Jeff82;842833035 said:

---

The pessimism comes from the assumption that we're on the treadmill again: Recruiter-who-can't-coach (Martin), coach-who-can't-recruit (Monty), recruiter-who-can't-coach (Braun), recruiter-who-can't-coach-and-puts-us-on-probation (Bozeman), recruiter-who-can't-coach (Campy), etc., etc., etc. Everyone assumes that Jones is flawed in one way or another, and are just waiting to see which it is. I get that. On the other hand, the alternatives appeared to me to be similarly flawed, once it was clear that Bennett wasn't interested in the job. Losing Moore is a blow, particularly after the good things he had to say about Jones. I'm willing to give the new coach a chance to regroup, especially given his ties to the area, and the fact that I now view Martin as a three-year detour that accomplished very little in terms of the path of the basketball program. But I get the pessimism.

---

I am a bit reluctant to repeat myself, but I think it is questionable to put CM in the category of coach who can recruit. It is likely that almost anyone coaching Cal would have been able to bring in Rabb, given his mother's preference that Ivan choose Cal. And Brown never comes to Cal without Ivan's recruiting of him.

So who else did he recruit that makes him a great recruiter? Charlie?

To me it could be argued that Rabb/Brown was a fluke, that getting Moore was nothing spectacular, indeed not more impressive than Monty's Cal recruiting.

south bender;842833052 said:

---

I am a bit reluctant to repeat myself, but I think it is questionable to put CM in the category of coach who can recruit. It is likely that almost anyone coaching Cal would have been able to bring in Rabb, given his mother's preference that Ivan choose Cal. And Brown never comes to Cal without Ivan's recruiting of him.

So who else did he recruit that makes him a great recruiter? Charlie?

To me it could be argued that Rabb/Brown was a fluke, that getting Moore was nothing spectacular, indeed not more impressive than Monty's Cal recruiting.

---

Whatever. My point is that every coach we have had, going back to Newell, had significant flaws. Hell, Newell had flaws, assuming that it's true that his recruitment of Darrell Imhoff consisted of Darrell's mom calling Newell to get Darrell a longer bed in his dorm. Newell never could have survived in the current coaching environment. We've had both coaches who seemingly could recruit, but couldn't figure out how to use the talent, and coaches that were good at player development, and Xs-and-Os, but couldn't get the talent to compete. Everyone is assuming that Jones is one or the other. if somehow he can put the package together, we're entering a golden age. But there's nothing in Cal's history to think that's the case. Which is why most people are depressed, and will be until we see the product on the floor next November.

south bender;842833052 said:

---

So who else did he recruit that makes him a great recruiter? Charlie?.

---

Lee? But I agree, outside of Rabb and Brown, there is nothing in Martin's coaching career to suggest he was a better recruiter than Monty.

south bender;842833052 said:

---

I am a bit reluctant to repeat myself, but I think it is questionable to put CM in the category of coach who can recruit.

---

I agree. In year zero (where he should get a pass) he recruited Okoroh and Chauca, both projects. In year one he recruited Rabb and Brown, both 5-stars, and Davis, another project. The 5-stars looked great but we got only 3 seasons combined from them. In year two he recruited Moore, a 4-star who was basically a gift and gave us only 1 season, and Coleman, who looks OK. In year three he recruited Baker and Harris-Dyson, 4-stars who look promising but Baker preferred Kentucky, and Knell, a 3-star who won't appear until 2019. I'm not counting Sueing and Anticevich because they signed with Jones.

So in 3 years Coach Martin got only 4 seasons from highly-rated recruits plus whatever we get down the road from Harris-Dyson. Coleman and Knell could develop better than expected, but either way I think Martin's recruiting was pretty thin.

Edit: Forgot about the transfers Tarwater, Domingo, and Mullins, and Lee. IMHO 1 good year from Mullins, probably 1 good year from Lee, at best mixed results from the other two. Doesn't change my conclusion since we have yet to see even 1 good 4-year player from Coach Martin..

Martin wasn't here long enough to truly know whether he has recruiting chops or not. What makes it seem like he is are all of the offers that were publicized. He had offered a lot of big names from 2018. But as Shocky has said elsewhere, just offering doesn't necessarily mean anything. You have to look at the type of offer. I think that the 2017 class could have been pretty good, but we will never know, as we only have 1/2 of it. At best, Martin gets an incomplete.

bluesaxe;842832531 said:

---

Braun had a Sweet 16 run with a very entertaining team, a first round win on a last second shot, an NIT championship, and brought in Leon Powe. I don't know what this round will bring, but when I think of low points I think of much lower than that. Let's say just about any time between 1975 and Campanelli.

---

C'mon now, that sweet 16 team was all Bozeman. Yes Braun should get some credit but elite athlete Tony, NBA headed guys in Yogi and Kiwi, reliable points from Duck and an amazing starcrossed moment when Grigsby wasn't disabled, none of those guys are Braun guys.

parentswerebears;842833084 said:

---

Martin wasn't here long enough to truly know whether he has recruiting chops or not. What makes it seem like he is are all of the offers that were publicized. He had offered a lot of big names from 2018. But as Shocky has said elsewhere, just offering doesn't necessarily mean anything. You have to look at the type of offer. I think that the 2017 class could have been pretty good, but we will never know, as we only have 1/2 of it. At best, Martin gets an incomplete.

---

I think we know enough to say two things: 1) he had the chops to pull in big names and 2) he whiffed an awful lot

Jeff82;842833035 said:

---

The pessimism comes from the assumption that we're on the treadmill again: Recruiter-who-can't-coach (Martin), coach-who-can't-recruit (Monty), recruiter-who-can't-coach (Braun), recruiter-who-can't-coach-and-puts-us-on-probation (Bozeman), recruiter-who-can't-coach (Campy), etc., etc., etc. Everyone assumes that Jones is flawed in one way or another, and are just waiting to see which it is. I get that. On the other hand, the alternatives appeared to me to be similarly flawed, once it was clear that Bennett wasn't interested in the job. Losing Moore is a blow, particularly after the good things he had to say about Jones. I'm willing to give the new coach a chance to regroup, especially given his ties to the area, and the fact that I now view Martin as a three-year detour that accomplished very little in terms of the path of the basketball program. But I get the pessimism.

---

+1 For me the pessimism is that it was three years that were "wasted' in respect to program building and you could argue that we are where we were when we canned Braun (thus a lost decade). You could argue that we would have been far better off with Travis rather than Martin. Now that is VERY much 20/20 hindsight and isn't fair to Dirks (and of course throws away hundreds of SCT posts and a PETITION for god sake) extolling Martin but monday morning QB'ing is human nature....and thus the debbie downer feelings.

The reference was to "the Braun years." That was one of them. And if you like, go back to what was predicted for that team, which in a lot of ways was considered a bunch of leftovers after the Bozeman fiasco. Some of those guys were players, some of them had to learn basic moves when Braun got there. Bozeman had those same guys plus Shareef and finished 10th in the conference. I'd say Braun took what was left of Bozeman's players and made them his team.

rkt88edmo;842833413 said:

---

C'mon now, that sweet 16 team was all Bozeman. Yes Braun should get some credit but elite athlete Tony, NBA headed guys in Yogi and Kiwi, reliable points from Duck and an amazing starcrossed moment when Grigsby wasn't disabled, none of those guys are Braun guys.

---

So far, he's recruited a 5-star and a 4-star and probably another 4-star to Missouri--all since he left Cal. I know, he bought Porter by hiring his father, but regardless of how, he has gotten talent to Mizzou.

bluesaxe;842833453 said:

---

The reference was to "the Braun years." That was one of them. And if you like, go back to what was predicted for that team, which in a lot of ways was considered a bunch of leftovers after the Bozeman fiasco. Some of those guys were players, some of them had to learn basic moves when Braun got there. Bozeman had those same guys plus Shareef and finished 10th in the conference. I'd say Braun took what was left of Bozeman's players and made them his team.

---

Actually, they finished 10th "officially" in the PAC10 in 1995-96 only after the NCAA took away the wins in the games Jeilani Gardner played in. As I recall, they actually finished 3rd that year, Bozeman's last year, and made the Tournament, and that was without Tremaine Fowlkes for the first half of the season. But yes, they should have done better with that roster, which included Shareef, Fowlkes, Gardner, and Ed Gray, who did not play on the Sweet Sixteen team's run the next season.

UrsaMajor;842832807 said:

---

I like your optimism, SFCity, and for the most part I agree with your assessment of Cuonzo, although I think you have to admit his defense was better than OK (#1 in the Pac-12 by most metrics, and top-20 nationally in every metric). Let's give the devil his due.

My only hesitation with your assessment is that I don't believe you can really judge high school players by highlight films. I also don't believe that either Antecevich, H-D, or Seuing is fit to play the point. That leaves essentially Chauca and Coleman. Chauca is physically limited no matter how hard he practices, and Coleman has a lot to learn. Maybe Jones can cover these flaws with a pure motion offense, we will see.

I'm fine with rebuilding, I just don't have a lot of hope for 2017-2018. Good coaching is imperative, but you still need talent.

---

I said the Cal defense was OK, because I come from a different perspective. The game has changed enormously since the time I learned how it was played, and what constituted great defense. Defense in California and in the Bay Area in particular in the 1950's was very special, probably the zenith of college defense. The rules of the game allowed defense to be freely played, and a good defense could shut down a good offense as USF and Cal proved with 3 NCAA championships and a runner-up. In 1959, when Cal won the title, teams scored on average 67 points per game, and Cal limited all regular season opponents to 50 points, a 17 point differential. Cal held 11 opponents to less than 50 points, and only one team, West Virginia in the NCAA title game, was able to score 70 points against the Bears. Cal's 1960 team was an even better defense. The national scoring average that year was 70 ppg, and Cal held opponents to 48 ppg, a 22 point differential. Cal held 22 opponents to under 50 points, and only one team, Ohio State in the NCAA final, was able to score 70 points against Cal, scoring 75. Cal's defenses were feared. Coaches and teams knew that they were going to have to play their best to score a little more than 50 points against the Bears. With all the rule changes over the years, defense today is much harder to play. It is no knock on them, but even with the national scoring average the same as 1959, the 2017 Bears held only one opponent to under 50 points, and allowed 10 teams to score 70 points and two teams to score 80 points against them.

Scoring increased in the following years to a high of 78 points in 1971, and began to drop steadily to 69 points in 1986. In that year, the shot clock was introduced, as well as the three-point shot, and the scoring average soon jumped up to 77 points in 1991. Since that time, scoring has steadily decreased to 67 points per game today, all the way back to what it was in 1959. In 2017 Cal's defense was ranked #1 in scoring defense in the PAC12, and #18 nationally, giving up 63.4 ppg, which was a 4 point differential vs the national scoring average.

Teams in 1959 and 1960 averaged 40% shooting and 66 field goal attempts per game. In 1959 Cal's defense held opponents to 35% shooting, holding them to 51 field goal attempts per game as well. This was due, in my opinion, not only to Cal having superior individual defenders, but to having rules that did not favor offense over defense, and to having no shot clock. With no shot clock, Cal could control the number of possessions for the opponent by controlling the ball on offense for as long as they wanted before they got the shot they wanted. Since 1986 or so, the national shooting percentage has steadily dropped from 47% to 43% today, and the number of field goal attempts per game has dropped from 61 attempts in 1991 to 54 attempts today.

Cal's defense this year held opponents to 40% shooting, ranked #14, and 56 field goal attempts per game, ranked #95. That was one problem with the Cal defense: Cal held opponents to a low percentage, but gave up a few too many attempts. Another problem was the lack of steals. Cal averaged 5 steals per game, ranked #308 in the country. Steals can help generate a fast break, leading to easy buckets, rather than a contrived fast break with outlet passes. This was tough season offensively for Cal, and one reason was the defense did not create many opportunities for the offense. Our offense was almost entirely in the half court, where baskets were tough to come by. Still Martin did a decent job with a group that had few good defensive players. Okoroh, Singer, Bird, and Moute a Bidias all learned a great deal of defense. Martin covered deficiencies with help defense, and kept Cal competitive in most games.

As to judging high school players by watching their video tapes, I have often said these videos are biased, and cherry-pick only the good plays in a player's game, never showing his weaknesses or mistakes. Still, what I read on the Bear Insider, is fans having full faith in a player simply because of his recruit ranking. Recruit rankings are only about 40% accurate in predicting the probability of a high school recruit being successful for his college team. Did you miss the spreadsheet I published on the Bear Insider of the top 100 ranked recruits for one year? I traced their whole careers and found only 40 were successful, and some of those did not help their college team, as they left school early, and later became successful in the NBA. If I have to judge a high school player, I need to see him play, not just blindly follow some guys who, even though they make a nice living ranking recruits, are only 40% right at best. If I can't see him play in person, then I need to see video. The video, at the least will show what he is capable of doing against players of his own level. Complete game videos are best, because you will see his deficiencies, but even video of his good points is better than blindly accepting what a recruit ranking tells me, which is basically nothing I'd take to Las Vegas and place a bet on. I saw Jerome Randle's high school video and predicted good things for him. Omondi Amoke's video dribbling and shooting threes really fooled me. It happens. Still, I think we are all better at judging players if we can see something of them in a video, rather than go exclusively by inaccurate recruit rankings.

With over 300 schools chasing these 40 good recruits every year, and only a 20 or so programs with a real chance of landing more than one, do you really think Cal or any other school has a chance of loading up their team with five or more of these players and competing for the NCAA crown? You had your shot with Phil Chenier and CJ's team, Kidd's team, Powe's team, and what better shot in terms of highly ranked recruits did you have than the team of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews? The key to building a competitive program and winning a NCAA title is hiring a great head coach. Get him, let him prove himself by winning with less, and the best players will begin to notice, and they will come. There are some around who have done this. Mark Few comes to mind, as an example. His program steadily gets better.

As usual, SFCity, a lot of material to digest.
I agree that Pete Newell's defenses were special; however, I also believe you can't really compare across eras because of the rules changes (and rules interpretations--like palming). Shooting is better than it used to be (shooting %ages are partially lowered because of the # of 3-point shots, which didn't exist in the 50's or 60's). The lack of steals has to do with a defensive philosophy (one I don't share, btw) of not going for steals, but forcing teams into low percentage shots. This, btw, was Monty's philosophy as well.

As for recruits, you are right, of course, rankings are of somewhat limited value, although a higher percentage of 5* recruits are successful than 2*. I don't remember your spreadsheet; how did you define successful?

Bottom line: to win you have to recruit and you have to coach. And while it is generally true that if you win, players will notice, recruiting is much more complicated these days. For instance, there are some kids who won't come to Cal because we're no longer a Nike school. There are some who are attracted by a charismatic coach, regardless of his ability to win (think Lorenzo Romar). While recruiting and coaching are related, they are somewhat independent as well.

Jeff82;842833060 said:

---

Whatever. My point is that every coach we have had, going back to Newell, had significant flaws. Hell, Newell had flaws, assuming that it's true that his recruitment of Darrell Imhoff consisted of Darrell's mom calling Newell to get Darrell a longer bed in his dorm. Newell never could have survived in the current coaching environment. We've had both coaches who seemingly could recruit, but couldn't figure out how to use the talent, and coaches that were good at player development, and Xs-and-Os, but couldn't get the talent to compete. Everyone is assuming that Jones is one or the other. if somehow he can put the package together, we're entering a golden age. But there's nothing in Cal's history to think that's the case. Which is why most people are depressed, and will be until we see the product on the floor next November.

---

Jeff82,

How can you say it is a flaw in a coach if someone tells him he has a 6’10” player enrolled on campus as a freshman, in an era where 6’-10” was still a rarity, and in so much demand in the game of basketball, and the coach decides to have a look at him? What coach would refuse? Isn’t it to Newell’s credit that he and his assistants tirelessly worked many long hours to develop Imhoff for two years, before he could be allowed to contribute, and contribute he did, to a NCAA championship? I’d say it would be a flaw if Newell had refused to look at the kid. Recruiting in those days was all done by word of mouth, by networking, and that may still be done today. How do you think Cuonzo found out about unranked Kingsley Okoroh? What about 7-footer Michael Olowokandi from England who starred for UOP a few years back? He read up on American colleges, and called up the UOP coach and asked to fly over for a tryout, and the coach signed him and he went on to play for UOP, become the #1 draft pick in the NBA, and played in the NBA 8 years. Was the UOP coach flawed because he accepted the call, invited the player, and signed him, even though he wasn’t ranked and the coach had not recruited him? USF coach Phil Woolpert offered a scholarship to Bill Russell of McClymonds without ever having scouted him or seen him play, just because he heard about him and heard he was 6’-9” tall. And Russell would not have been a ranked recruit, as he wasn’t very good in high school.

If you are saying that Newell was not a good recruiter because of that one incident with Imhoff, that is just not fair, and not informed. There were no recruit rankings in Newell’s day, and no alumni and fans calling for a coach’s head if he did not bring in five star or top 100 players every year. The alumni did want great players, of course, and so did Newell. But Newell was severely limited by both the alumni and the administration: they did not want black players, and Newell did. There were less than 100 black students on campus in 1954, when Newell arrived. The administration did not want to take a chance on players who were not good students in high school. Newell did manage to recruit three fine black players, two of whom did flunk out. Only Robinson became a starter, and All-Conference. The two best players in the Bay Area in the mid 1950s were Fred LaCour, and Tom Meschery, both named members of the High School All-American team, a team of 5 players, and both committed early to Catholic schools. LaCour’s mother always insisted on choosing his school, from elementary school through college, and she chose USF for Fred, and Tom Meschery had been literally raised by Franciscan fathers in Manchuria, so he wanted to go to St Marys because of his close attachment with them. There was no chance for Cal or any other school to get either one.

Pete Newell was allowed to give out 17 new scholarships every year, and he and his assistants scoured the state and beyond for the best ones they could find. Earl Robinson was already set to go to UCLA and John Wooden, when Newell stole him for Cal by spending hours with Robinson’s mom. He went to Milwaukee and recruited Bill McClintock, an ex-Marine, who Newell sent to JC to get his grades up, so he could get in to Cal. He too would make the All-Conference team. Newell recruited highly regarded Al Buch from New York. In his first season, Newell recruited a transfer from LA, future All-American Larry Friend. He got a number of fine players from Southern California, including Denny Fitzpatrick and Earl Shultz, and Jerry Mann from SF, and Bob Wendell from the Peninsula. All were stars and highly regarded players in high school. When I tried out for the frosh in 1959, there were already 17 players on a freshman scholarship, and most of those players were All-League in their high school league, and several of them were MVPs of their leagues. Among them was Jim Smith, an MVP from Santa Cruz, who averaged over 30 ppg in high school, along with Dick Smith out of Gilroy, and Camden Wall out of the San Jose area, both of whom would make All-Conference at Cal, and Dan Lufkin of Alameda.

With the restrictions placed on Newell as to black players and players who could not gain admission academically (remember there was no SAT then, no extra credits given – you either went to a good high school or you didn’t, and you either got the grades or you didn’t), I think Newell did a helluva recruiting job. His recruits may not have been the most athletic, but they were not chopped liver either. They were all fundamentally sound ballplayers, and most of them were already that way as recruits.

The Imhoff recruiting story just reminds me how much the College experience and its relationship with basketball, recruits, fans and the press/media has changed so much. I'm on the dark side of 50 and went to Cal with KJ, so I've been a Cal fan for 34 years now. SFCITY and others are at least a generation earlier than me and those two eras are sooooo different. Nowadays, we are talking about an era at least a generation+ since my time and it is a different beast again.

For those that enjoy the pseudo-histori-science of oversimplification of the likes of Jared Diamond, I'd actually suggest the next generation after the KJ era, was probably the Monty (end of Braun ) era and that we are in a transitional period where the arms-race and entertainment-first mentality of current D1 BBall is at an extreme level. Personally, my expectation (and hope) is that the bubble will burst in the not too distant future (next 10 years) and an alternative path to professionalism will by pass D1 education. The entertainment focus will shift away from D1, TV contracts will decrease, hyper focus on top recruits will come back to earth a bit and coaches will not be diva stars (and Calipari will be back in the NBA).

However, I also thought reality TV was a fad.

:gobears:

socaltownie;842833430 said:

---

+1 For me the pessimism is that it was three years that were "wasted' in respect to program building and you could argue that we are where we were when we canned Braun (thus a lost decade). You could argue that we would have been far better off with Travis rather than Martin. Now that is VERY much 20/20 hindsight and isn't fair to Dirks (and of course throws away hundreds of SCT posts and a PETITION for god sake) extolling Martin but monday morning QB'ing is human nature....and thus the debbie downer feelings.

---

Correct. The great unknown is where we would be with Travis and several years of Jakob Poetl, versus where we ended up with one year of Brown and two years of Rabb, and no Cuonzo Martin. There's really no way to answer that. It still amazes me that Monty walked away when he supposedly had the post player he coveted for years on his doorstep, but that's what happened. I'm with you in that Martin snowed me. I'm supporting Jones, to mix metaphors, mostly because I don't want to be burned that way again.

UrsaMajor:
As usual, SFCity, a lot of material to digest.

Hopefully he's not typing on an iPhone

HoopDreams;842833577 said:

---

UrsaMajor:
As usual, SFCity, a lot of material to digest.

Hopefully he's not typing on an iPhone

---

Like this?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6328[/ATTACH]

HoopDreams;842833577 said:

---

UrsaMajor:
As usual, SFCity, a lot of material to digest.

Hopefully he's not typing on an iPhone

---

Hey, that is a good idea. Maybe if I tried that, it would cure me of this cursed addiction called "diarrhea of the keyboard", and I wouldn't type so much. I have an old flip phone with 12 keys. If I try that, it would cure me for sure. My apologies to all for the onerous posts. I'm trying to reform, but getting nowhere.

UrsaMajor;842833503 said:

---

As usual, SFCity, a lot of material to digest.
I agree that Pete Newell's defenses were special; however, I also believe you can't really compare across eras because of the rules changes (and rules interpretations--like palming). Shooting is better than it used to be (shooting %ages are partially lowered because of the # of 3-point shots, which didn't exist in the 50's or 60's). The lack of steals has to do with a defensive philosophy (one I don't share, btw) of not going for steals, but forcing teams into low percentage shots. This, btw, was Monty's philosophy as well.

As for recruits, you are right, of course, rankings are of somewhat limited value, although a higher percentage of 5* recruits are successful than 2*. I don't remember your spreadsheet; how did you define successful?

Bottom line: to win you have to recruit and you have to coach. And while it is generally true that if you win, players will notice, recruiting is much more complicated these days. For instance, there are some kids who won't come to Cal because we're no longer a Nike school. There are some who are attracted by a charismatic coach, regardless of his ability to win (think Lorenzo Romar). While recruiting and coaching are related, they are somewhat independent as well.

---

With all that excessive writing, my point was lost, and that was that there is little to separate defenses of today from each other, IMO. Watching Cal's PAC12 games, all the defenses look the same to me, man plus a couple of zones, except that Cal switches (helps) more often than any of them. The offenses are all running the same stuff, and the lane always seems to be clogged. There is all this open space in the mid range, but everyone is either posting up, or shooting threes or crashing to the basket. In the late '50s, the styles of play and the plays themselves varied a great deal from team to team. I have no idea if any other defenses in 1959 or 1960 could hold other teams to 20 points below their offensive totals on average, but Cal did it. That is scary. If I was coaching against Cal last year, I would be far less scared of Cal's defense which could hold teams to just 4 points below their scoring average. And Cal was a highly ranked defense last year. My point might be that there is more parity, defensively, at least, among teams today, IMO.

As to how I defined success for recruits, this is from the original post:

"I defined it as having at least one good season in college. I defined a good season as being a member of a team's rotation, and putting up some individual numbers expected for his position. If a player did not put up the numbers, but was in the rotation, and was a better than average defender, or contributed to his team's success, that would still be a good season. Momo Jones of Arizona would be an example, as he did not put up the numbers, but helped Arizona to an Elite 8 in 2011. A scoring position like SF or SG, should average double figures. A Top 30 SF or SG recruit should average more than 10 points. A point guard should average at least 4-5 assists, or if not, be a scorer as well. A PF or Center should get at least 8-10 points and 6-8 rebounds, or get some shot blocks.

What is a successful season? Many fans here seem to use getting to the Sweet 16 as a measure of success. I agree. I also think if a team wins its round robin Conference Championship, then that is a successful season. If a team wins a lot of games, that is also a successful season. I arbitrarily picked a number, 25 wins, as a good season. So if a team achieved any one of those three criteria, I considered it a successful season."

62 players lived up to their recruit ranking, 40 players helped their team to at least one good season, and 34 players helped their ORIGINAL school to at least one good season. The recruit rankings for the top 30 players is a much more accurate predictor than players ranked 61-100.

Here is the original post, including a link to the spreadsheet:

http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?94664-How-good-are-recruit-rankings-Here-s-a-look-at-the-top-100-recruits-for-one-year&highlight=recruit+rankings

In the late 50's you could take as much time to run a play as you wanted to. Now you have 30 seconds. That's just one difference but I think it's pretty significant.

Looking at FG% is a waste of time. Look at EFG% to get a real picture.

This is probably more of a response to UM, but I think a pressure defense makes more and more sense the shorter the shot clock gets. I'm hopeful we'll see more of that.

SFCityBear;842833965 said:

---

With all that excessive writing, my point was lost, and that was that there is little to separate defenses of today from each other, IMO. Watching Cal's PAC12 games, all the defenses look the same to me, man plus a couple of zones, except that Cal switches (helps) more often than any of them. The offenses are all running the same stuff, and the lane always seems to be clogged. There is all this open space in the mid range, but everyone is either posting up, or shooting threes or crashing to the basket. In the late '50s, the styles of play and the plays themselves varied a great deal from team to team. I have no idea if any other defenses in 1959 or 1960 could hold other teams to 20 points below their offensive totals on average, but Cal did it. That is scary. If I was coaching against Cal last year, I would be far less scared of Cal's defense which could hold teams to just 4 points below their scoring average. And Cal was a highly ranked defense last year. My point might be that there is more parity, defensively, at least, among teams today, IMO.

As to how I defined success for recruits, this is from the original post:

"I defined it as having at least one good season in college. I defined a good season as being a member of a team's rotation, and putting up some individual numbers expected for his position. If a player did not put up the numbers, but was in the rotation, and was a better than average defender, or contributed to his team's success, that would still be a good season. Momo Jones of Arizona would be an example, as he did not put up the numbers, but helped Arizona to an Elite 8 in 2011. A scoring position like SF or SG, should average double figures. A Top 30 SF or SG recruit should average more than 10 points. A point guard should average at least 4-5 assists, or if not, be a scorer as well. A PF or Center should get at least 8-10 points and 6-8 rebounds, or get some shot blocks.

What is a successful season? Many fans here seem to use getting to the Sweet 16 as a measure of success. I agree. I also think if a team wins its round robin Conference Championship, then that is a successful season. If a team wins a lot of games, that is also a successful season. I arbitrarily picked a number, 25 wins, as a good season. So if a team achieved any one of those three criteria, I considered it a successful season."

62 players lived up to their recruit ranking, 40 players helped their team to at least one good season, and 34 players helped their ORIGINAL school to at least one good season. The recruit rankings for the top 30 players is a much more accurate predictor than players ranked 61-100.

Here is the original post, including a link to the spreadsheet:

http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?94664-How-good-are-recruit-rankings-Here-s-a-look-at-the-top-100-recruits-for-one-year&highlight=recruit+rankings

---

I fully agree. The lack of pressure with both CM and MM (actually BB as well) used to drive me crazy, because even if you weren't trapping for a steal, simple pressure in the backcourt could burn 7-8 seconds and make the halfcourt offense that much more difficult. Of course, as SFCity points out, pressure defense requires excellent conditioning.

If you remember the UCLA game this year, when we made that little run in the 2nd half, we went to full court pressure, and got 3 turnovers in a row; not saying that could have happened the whole game, but it illustrates the possibilities.

Oh, and you're totally correct Efg% and Defensive efficiency are the stats to look at on defense.

totally agree
I hate allowing the other team to be so comfortable
it might work earlier in the game when the opponent is trying to run their stuff cleanly.
but I think a defense needs to be unpredictable and take the opponent out of their offense.
and there is no easier points in a game than a fast break off a turnover (except maybe a fast break off a long rebound)

UrsaMajor;842833997 said:

---

I fully agree. The lack of pressure with both CM and MM (actually BB as well) used to drive me crazy, because even if you weren't trapping for a steal, simple pressure in the backcourt could burn 7-8 seconds and make the halfcourt offense that much more difficult. Of course, as SFCity points out, pressure defense requires excellent conditioning.

If you remember the UCLA game this year, when we made that little run in the 2nd half, we went to full court pressure, and got 3 turnovers in a row; not saying that could have happened the whole game, but it illustrates the possibilities.

Oh, and you're totally correct Efg% and Defensive efficiency are the stats to look at on defense.

---

The unpredictability/disruption is key imo. And hearing Jones talk about what he wants to do, I was happy. Changing defenses often enough to surprise, pressure to create turnovers, conditioning levels to match, all that. It doesn't have to be relentless 40 minutes of hell stuff, it can be full court press sometimes, half court press sometimes, switch from man to zone. It probably requires better coaching than the half court prevent defense we've had but that's ok.

HoopDreams;842834110 said:

---

totally agree
I hate allowing the other team to be so comfortable
it might work earlier in the game when the opponent is trying to run their stuff cleanly.
but I think a defense needs to be unpredictable and take the opponent out of their offense.
and there is no easier points in a game than a fast break off a turnover (except maybe a fast break off a long rebound)

---

bluesaxe;842834128 said:

---

The unpredictability/disruption is key imo. And hearing Jones talk about what he wants to do, I was happy. Changing defenses often enough to surprise, pressure to create turnovers, conditioning levels to match, all that. It doesn't have to be relentless 40 minutes of hell stuff, it can be full court press sometimes, half court press sometimes, switch from man to zone. It probably requires better coaching than the half court prevent defense we've had but that's ok.

---

That's the Pitino influence for sure. His Louisville teams always play that way and they create a lot of havoc pressing, trapping, switching, etc. I'm happy that this is part of Jones' philosophy. The short-term challenge is that playing this way requires a lot of bodies and it requires athletes. Louisville uses a deep bench - 10-11 guys routinely this past season would cycle in. And all of the guys are athletic. We don't have the numbers and we don't have the athletes to play that way next season. But that's something that can be fixed in a couple of years. That said, I'm very much down with the philosophical shift and look forward to seeing it come to fruition once we get the personnel.

bluesaxe;842833973 said:

---

In the late 50's you could take as much time to run a play as you wanted to. Now you have 30 seconds. That's just one difference but I think it's pretty significant.

---

I'm not sure what this comment is in response to, but I agree with it. However, Pete Newell was a huge advocate of the shot clock, even the 24 second NBA clock. He loved it because he knew his offense was so disciplined and efficient, they could easily get a good shot attempt in less than 24 seconds. He also loved it, because he knew most teams could not get a similarly good shot off against his defense in the same 24 seconds, and his team would often get the ball back. Continuing that line of thinking, Newell probably thought that with a clock, his teams would score more points and give up less points, thus further widening his team's average margin of victory. Somehow that never played out with other coaches and many years to get this right, and the margins of victory have shrunk, not increased. Maybe that is because of all the tinkering with the rules since the late 1950s, adding the three, reducing the charge calls, virtually eliminating the palming and charging calls, eliminating the hand check, and so forth. Many fans of basketball today probably like the close games as being more competitive. Cal fans in the late '50s, and especially in 1960, were more excited about crushing the opponent. A 12 point win was not good enough for us. A game was not entertaining enough for many of us, unless we got to see our favorites at the far end of the bench, like Ned Averbuck, get to play, so we could give them a cheer or two.

Quote:

---

Looking at FG% is a waste of time. Look at EFG% to get a real picture............

---

I don't disagree about Efg% either. But like all statistics, it only tells a part of the story. You need to look at several statistics, not just one or two, and even then, statistics only tell part of the story. Take FG% or Efg% for example. Suppose you are playing a team that is a poor shooting team (like Cal of last season), a team that too often misses wide open shots. Is their poor shooting a result of your playing good defense, or is it they missed open shots all by themselves? Did you play good defense against them, by not giving them open looks, or by blocking or tipping their shot, or getting a hand in their face, or otherwise distracting them, to cause them to miss the shot? Just looking at the shooting percentage you held them to, whether it is FG% of Efg%, does not tell us how good your defense was. That depends on how good the opponent was.

Also, even if the stats show your defense holds teams to a low shooting percentage, if in turn you give them more field goal attempts than the average, you are giving up too many points. Cal is ranked #95 in the country in field goal attempts allowed. You need to hold the opponents' shot attempts down along with their percentage to be a great defense.

Another point is that the Cal defense fouls too much. Many Cal fans, and fans of all teams whine about their team getting called for too many fouls while the opponents get called for hardly any fouls. But Cal last season was ranked #292 in the country in fouls per defensive play. That resulted in a lot of points for the opponents. Cal's opponents scored 20.1% of their points against Cal by means of making free throws, ranking Cal #209 in the country in that category. Remember that Cal's average margin of victory is only 4.8 points, ranked #71 in the country, so Cal doesn't have much of a margin of error to work with, and can't afford to be committing a lot of fouls and giving up free throws to the opponent.

The bottom line stat for me is how many points does your defense give up. Virginia has proven last season that you can hold teams to 56 points. They didn't have three seven footers like Cal did, and all they really had on offense was Perrantes. So I'd say Virginia is a very good defense. If Cal held teams to 56 points, they win the PAC12 just about any year, perhaps even last year.

Ah, my bad, not 10th. They were 17-11 overall and 11-7 in conference before adjustment for the Garner stuff, which left them 2-25 and 2-16 respectively according Sports Reference. They did make the tourney and lost that one game. They finished 4th in conference. Strangely Sports Reference showed their non-adjusted record but put them 10th based on the adjusted record I guess, which is where I screwed up. Still, basically the same team without Shareef finished 23-9 and 12-6 and in a three-way tie for second in conference under Braun and a Sweet 16 run without Ed Gray.

CalEnviroLaw;842833470 said:

---

Actually, they finished 10th "officially" in the PAC10 in 1995-96 only after the NCAA took away the wins in the games Jeilani Gardner played in. As I recall, they actually finished 3rd that year, Bozeman's last year, and made the Tournament, and that was without Tremaine Fowlkes for the first half of the season. But yes, they should have done better with that roster, which included Shareef, Fowlkes, Gardner, and Ed Gray, who did not play on the Sweet Sixteen team's run the next season.

---

Sorry, it had to do with this statement from your post: "[COLOR=#000066]The offenses are all running the same stuff, and the lane always seems to be clogged. There is all this open space in the mid range, but everyone is either posting up, or shooting threes or crashing to the basket. In the late ‘50s, the styles of play and the plays themselves varied a great deal from team to team."

On the point re shot attempts, that's not really true unless you're adjusting for pace of play. If you hold the opponent to a low shooting percentage but the pace of play is fast, they will still get more shots off than average. Moreover, good defense is more about not giving up good shots than limiting the number of shots imo.
[/COLOR]

SFCityBear;842834176 said:

---

I’m not sure what this comment is in response to, but I agree with it. However, Pete Newell was a huge advocate of the shot clock, even the 24 second NBA clock. He loved it because he knew his offense was so disciplined and efficient, they could easily get a good shot attempt in less than 24 seconds.

. . .

Also, even if the stats show your defense holds teams to a low shooting percentage, if in turn you give them more field goal attempts than the average, you are giving up too many points. Cal is ranked #95 in the country in field goal attempts allowed. You need to hold the opponents’ shot attempts down along with their percentage to be a great defense.

---

UrsaMajor;842833997 said:

---

I fully agree. The lack of pressure with both CM and MM (actually BB as well) used to drive me crazy, because even if you weren't trapping for a steal, simple pressure in the backcourt could burn 7-8 seconds and make the halfcourt offense that much more difficult. Of course, as SFCity points out, pressure defense requires excellent conditioning.

If you remember the UCLA game this year, when we made that little run in the 2nd half, we went to full court pressure, and got 3 turnovers in a row; not saying that could have happened the whole game, but it illustrates the possibilities............

---

I'd like to see a full court press, all game long, if necessary, which does require conditioning and a deep bench, but also, to borrow your phrase, "you need to have the talent." The coach can't just wake up one morning and declare we are going to press in the game tonight. Newell recruited for defense. He did not press much in his first few years at Cal, but by 1959, he had the defensive talent to do it. It was a simple two-man press, full court, and with all the steals made by Buch, Fitzpatrick, and Simpson, that gave Cal a built-in fast break and many very easy layups. He was so successful with it, that Wooden adopted the idea of a press. Wooden too began to recruit for defense, and got even better athletes. With his first championship, he used 6'-5" center Fred Slaughter to harass the inbounds pass, and then played more of a zone press, with everyone else pressing, except Keith Erickson, who was the best athlete on the team, playing center field to pick off any down court pass or stop any breakaway. Later, when Lew Alcindor became eligible, Wooden used his huge height and enormous wingspan to harass the inbounds pass, and used the same zone press, with the team's best defender, Kenny Heitz, in center field in the Erickson role. Devastating.

Three years ago, Cuonzo inherited a team with no great defenders, or even good ones. Gradually he taught his players to play better individual defense, but none of them had really become good defenders, save Kingsley last season. They were good at defense, mostly because of help, swarming to the ball like they do in football now. If you are going to run even a simple press, you need two good defensive guards. Last season, if we had tried that for any extensive minutes, other teams would begin to easily beat it. If you can't stop anyone by yourself in the halfcourt, how are you going to stop them alone in the backcourt, when help is too far away? If a guard beats your defender in the backcourt, it quickly becomes 5 on 4 or even 5 on 3 in the halfcourt and you start giving up buckets or free throws. I would say you could teach sound fundamentals, and maybe try a press once in while for a play or two. If you start teaching this in October, maybe by January, Coleman might be ready to do this, and maybe Chauca. I don't think you can press more than two players, because you will be too exposed at the other end. Your best defender needs to get back to the far end quickly. In 1959 and 1960, it was Imhoff, who was considerably faster than Okoroh or Rooks is today. Perhaps Lee can play D and is fast enough to get down court quickly. Jones needs to recruit better defensive players, especially guards, and today, that is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Kids just aren't interested in playing defense, with all the rules preventing it, and coaches don't teach it in high school much, apparently, judging by the recruits Cal gets, all IMO.

Agree totally. One interesting note: Montgomery made his reputation as a defensive coach. Interesting that you see none of the players he left for CM as good defenders. Was MM's reputation undeserved in your view?

I'm not sure what you meant by Montgomery's reputation, but I think I exaggerated too much to make a point. The team Cuonzo inherited was basically Wallace, Mathews, Bird, Kravish and Behrens. I think Rooks was injured. Singer and Roger became good defenders in the following seasons, but were not ready for prime time in year one. Kravish and Behrens were OK on defense, but Mathews and Bird were not. Wallace did not have quickness, but made up for it somewhat with long arms. Wallace, Mathews, and Bird needed help much of the time, as did Kravish. Montgomery's best defenders from the previous year, Solomon, Cobbs, and Kreklow were gone. Cobbs and Kreklow would have been fine in a press defense, Cobbs and Wallace would have been OK, but only once in a while. Wallace was good stealing the ball when he left his man to get in the passing lanes, but not so good stealing the ball from his man on the bounce, which is what a good press requires.

In Cuonzo's first year, a press with Wallace and Mathews would have been a big mistake, IMO. He did bring in Tarwater, who was able to contribute some, but too slow for a press. Neither Okoroh or Chauca were ready for prime time. This is no knock on Cuonzo, as it is hard for a new coach coming in, having missed most of the recruiting season. I suspect that had Montgomery stayed, he might have found a decent player or two to sign, but whatever relationship he had with any of them likely dissolved when he retired. The team would have been better defensively had not Rooks been hurt, and Behrens having to deal with injuries as well. Montgomery did not leave Cuonzo much, but he left him with much more talent than Cuonzo left for Wyking Jones.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, SFCity. I just think that because Montgomery was articulate and thoughtful when talking about defense, the consensus among the press was that he was a defensive "genius." FWIW, I think he was excellent at designing defenses to take away an opponent's leading threat, but perhaps not so at teaching (or maybe by the time he got to Cal, he was just tired of teaching).

UrsaMajor;842834238 said:

---

I wasn't disagreeing with you, SFCity. I just think that because Montgomery was articulate and thoughtful when talking about defense, the consensus among the press was that he was a defensive "genius." FWIW, I think he was excellent at designing defenses to take away an opponent's leading threat, but perhaps not so at teaching (or maybe by the time he got to Cal, he was just tired of teaching).

---

I thought that most or almost all Montgomery's players improved their individual defense over time. With Jorge, he had to teach him to tone it down some, because Jorge was foul prone in his first season. So teaching individual defense, Monty seemed good to me. If by teaching you meant teaching help defense or teaching zone defense, I don't think I could really say how good he was. Cuonzo might have been more of an innovator in that respect, because he expanded standard help defense, to having everybody switch everything, as Montgomery described it. I don't watch anything but Cal games, so I don't know if other teams do that. If the reputation among the press for Monty is "genius", then I think that is a stretch. He was a good coach, a smart one, but to be a genius of a coach, I think you have to think outside the box, and innovate, do things other coaches haven't done. Invent something. A triangle, or a four-corner offense, or a new type of zone. Newell was an innovator, as was Bob Knight and John Wooden. Newell and Knight invented the motion offense. Or it could be something simple, like in 1959 Newell used to have his guards press, but as the other team's guards got over the mid court line, he'd have his guards overplay their men to the outside, inviting them to drive the lane, where Imhoff was waiting to stuff the shot or steal a pass. Wooden's full court press was an innovation. If any coach was a genius, then those guys were some of the ones who were closest to that.

UrsaMajor;842834238 said:

---

I wasn't disagreeing with you, SFCity. I just think that because Montgomery was articulate and thoughtful when talking about defense, the consensus among the press was that he was a defensive "genius." FWIW, I think he was excellent at designing defenses to take away an opponent's leading threat, but perhaps not so at teaching (or maybe by the time he got to Cal, he was just tired of teaching).

---

FYI, Montgomery coached the nation's 6th best defense in terms of Adjusted Defensive Efficiency (KenPom) at Stanford in 2003-04, his last season there. There's no data earlier than the 2001-02 season on KenPom, but his 1997-2001 teams were also among the best in the nation.

My personal opinion is that his recruiting of bigs at Cal was subpar, which played a big part in the defense not being at the level he and fans desired.