another brilliant choice by the legendary chancellor Dirks. or, do you really think that Sandy made that choice??if you do, would you like to consider some bridges in brooklyn I have to sell??

SFCityBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Had Swanigan been allowed to come it would have been a much better season. Instead PU got the gifted CS.

---

Usually I am in agreement with most or all of what you write, but I puzzle over this one, for a lot of reasons. Why do you think Swanigan would have made the 2015-16 Cal team a lot better? Is it just because he had a top 20 recruit ranking? Didn't we have enough highly ranked recruits? Many teams have won conferences and NCAA championships with lower ranked recruits, haven't they? Cal was loaded, compared to past Cal teams, and loaded compared to many of the teams they played. The old clich, "there is only one basketball" defined that team offensively, as they failed to share that ball as a good team should. Cal started Brown, a top 5 recruit, Rabb, a top 10, Bird, a top 20, Wallace, a top 100, and a good 4-star in Mathews. Ideally, they could have had a better center, a point guard who could distribute, and a better bench. But they underachieved for what they had, IMO, even before the injuries.

Swanigan played well at Purdue, but as a freshman, he played PF opposite a 7-0 senior center, perhaps the team's best player, and another 7-2, 300 lb center backing him up. He did not have the pressure to man the post and control the paint that he would have had playing center at Cal. And he played in an offense that shared the ball, unlike Cuonzo Martin's offense. Purdue made 64% of their points with the help of an assist, while Cal made only 48% of theirs by way of an assist. Cal basically had their one-on-one players taking most of their shots, Brown, Wallace, and Mathews. Fans clamored for Rabb to get the ball more, and Bird should have touched the ball more as well, but Cal struggled a lot to get the ball to other players or to get the players open looks. Swanigan would have been one more player asking for the ball and not getting it as much as he might like.

Swanigan would have replaced Rooks or Okoroh in the starting lineup. Caleb played 26 minutes at Purdue, and Rooks and KO combined for 28 minutes at Cal. Caleb averaged 10 pts, 8 rebs, 2 assists, 3 TOs, 0.2 blocks, 2 PFs, and 46% shooting. Rooks and KO combined averaged 6 pts, 7 rebs, 1 assist, 1 TO, 1.9 blocks, 5 PFs, and 58% shooting. Caleb, IMO, would have given Cal a few more points with his scoring and an assist, but would likely have cost some points with his turnovers, while Rooks and KO shot a much better percentage and their shot blocks and paint defense perhaps reduced the opponents' scoring by a few points. Maybe Swanigan helps, but not enough to make that team a lot better, IMO. Under a different coach, with an actual offensive system, Swanigan could have more impact.

---

Why would Swanigan have made Cal a lot better? As you said, ideally they could have used a better center, and for anyone that watched him play, Swanigan would have clearly been better.

But let's forget the obvious and just play your statistics game. As you pointed out, Caleb averaged 4 more points and 1 more rebound in 2 fewer minutes than Rooks and Kingsley (R&K) combined. But more importantly, Swanigan getting 26 minutes at Cal would have allowed R&K to back him up for the other 14 minutes of the game (and kept Rabb at the 4). So if Swanigan contributed 10 & 8 in 26 minutes at Cal, then R&K's 6 & 7 in 28 minutes could have translated to 3 & 3.5 in the other 14 minutes. That's 7 more points and 4.5 more possessions per game. Cal averaged 1.01 points per possession, so that's another 5 more points for a total of 12 more points per game.

With those 12 additional ppg's, Cal would have gone 33-1 and won that first round game against Hawaii!

Let's say it only really translated to 8 more ppg. Cal would have gone undefeated in the conference!

But let's say it only really REALLY translated to only 4 more points per game (the difference between Caleb and R&K's ppg). Cal wins the conference title and likely the Pac12 tourney as well.

Dang statistics.

Had Swanigan come to Cal, who would have been a better contributor to outperform W-L record: Ivan or Swanigan?

Fully agree that a pass-first pg was what the team lacked (obviously, in addition to decent offensive coaching). The one thing that Swanigan would have brought (based on my relatively limited watching of him) was better interior defense than either KO or Rooks, although defense wasn't the team's weakness.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Fully agree that a pass-first pg was what the team lacked (obviously, in addition to decent offensive coaching). The one thing that Swanigan would have brought (based on my relatively limited watching of him) was better interior defense than either KO or Rooks, although defense wasn't the team's weakness.

---

Swanigan would have brought way better post offense. Would have taken the double-teams off of Rabb.

SFCityBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Had Swanigan been allowed to come it would have been a much better season. Instead PU got the gifted CS.

---

Usually I am in agreement with most or all of what you write, but I puzzle over this one, for a lot of reasons. Why do you think Swanigan would have made the 2015-16 Cal team a lot better? Is it just because he had a top 20 recruit ranking? Didn't we have enough highly ranked recruits? Many teams have won conferences and NCAA championships with lower ranked recruits, haven't they? Cal was loaded, compared to past Cal teams, and loaded compared to many of the teams they played. The old clich, "there is only one basketball" defined that team offensively, as they failed to share that ball as a good team should. Cal started Brown, a top 5 recruit, Rabb, a top 10, Bird, a top 20, Wallace, a top 100, and a good 4-star in Mathews. Ideally, they could have had a better center, a point guard who could distribute, and a better bench. But they underachieved for what they had, IMO, even before the injuries.

Swanigan played well at Purdue, but as a freshman, he played PF opposite a 7-0 senior center, perhaps the team's best player, and another 7-2, 300 lb center backing him up. He did not have the pressure to man the post and control the paint that he would have had playing center at Cal. And he played in an offense that shared the ball, unlike Cuonzo Martin's offense. Purdue made 64% of their points with the help of an assist, while Cal made only 48% of theirs by way of an assist. Cal basically had their one-on-one players taking most of their shots, Brown, Wallace, and Mathews. Fans clamored for Rabb to get the ball more, and Bird should have touched the ball more as well, but Cal struggled a lot to get the ball to other players or to get the players open looks. Swanigan would have been one more player asking for the ball and not getting it as much as he might like.

Swanigan would have replaced Rooks or Okoroh in the starting lineup. Caleb played 26 minutes at Purdue, and Rooks and KO combined for 28 minutes at Cal. Caleb averaged 10 pts, 8 rebs, 2 assists, 3 TOs, 0.2 blocks, 2 PFs, and 46% shooting. Rooks and KO combined averaged 6 pts, 7 rebs, 1 assist, 1 TO, 1.9 blocks, 5 PFs, and 58% shooting. Caleb, IMO, would have given Cal a few more points with his scoring and an assist, but would likely have cost some points with his turnovers, while Rooks and KO shot a much better percentage and their shot blocks and paint defense perhaps reduced the opponents' scoring by a few points. Maybe Swanigan helps, but not enough to make that team a lot better, IMO. Under a different coach, with an actual offensive system, Swanigan could have more impact.

Petaluma mentioned Swanigan could shoot threes as well. Then he would be another player making threes at a low percentage. In 2016, Brown and Wallace took way too many threes, IMO, and shot them at 29%. Pathetic. What was really pathetic about it was that Martin allowed it, maybe encouraged it. Caleb shot threes as a freshman at 29%. I can say now I'd rather have Rooks or KO attempt any kind of shot at 58% than see Swanigan shoot a three at a 29% success rate.

What would have helped that Cal team more than a Swanigan would have been a real "think pass-first" point guard. Not necessarily as great as Jason Kidd or a Lonzo Ball, but maybe a TJ McConnell, to get the ball to all the stars for open shots. Even a Charlie Moore. And as things turned out, with Wallace and Bird getting hurt at the end of the season, Cal could have used another shooting guard, someone like Christopher or Grant Mullins, to come off the bench when Bird went down. Unfortunately that Cal team was greatly limited by the strategy of the coach which was so simple, it was easy to defend. They had enough recruits to win more games, but the Stone Age Neanderthal coaching of Cuonzo Martin held them back, IMO.

---

Hi there. Was Caleb Swanigan an impact player at Pu?
Consensus first-team A-A (2017)
Pete Newell Big Man (2017)
Lute Olson Award (2017)
Big Ten/14 POY (2017) and
First-team All-Big Ten/14 (2017)
Big Ten/14 All-Frosh (2016),
and . . .
Indiana's Mr. Basketball (2015)
McDonalds A-A (2015)
Parade Mag' A-A (2015).

I hear you regarding the numbers, and I support your methodology. I saw Swanigan as an impact player in HS and at Pu. I thought he could be the same at Cal, but as you know there are other analytics that don't show up in the box scores. In the end I believe his choice to play at Pu was a good one because it was family and Coach Painter seems like a winner. Is it of interest to anyone that Coach Martin was a Pu guy?

I watched (TV) the Boilers play when Swanigan was on the roster, mostly Big Ten/14 play against teams with successful coaches Coach Beilein (Meatchicken), Coach Izzo (MStu), xCoach Matta (tOSu), Coach Crean (Iu) and also uWhisky post-Bo Ryan.

How is it that a player who is heavily recruited out of high school and has a less than spectacular two years in college ends up being a big impact player at the next level? (DeAndre Jordan, LA Clippers). Maybe it's poor coaching?

And how about a player who is heavily recruited out of high school and has a spectacular college career but flat-lines at the next level? Maybe it's good coaching. Will this be the case with Swanigan?

It's mostly about coaching. Would Swanigan have played to his potential or significantly improved the Cal team? The "Stone Age Neanderthal coaching" styke suggest he would not.

It is my opinion that Coach M was poor at game and player management. He squandered talent. His ineffective offense couldn't be compensated for by his defense. All Pac-12 coaches have moments of failure uA Coach Miller seems baffled by uO Coach Altman. CM was addled by some sad assistant coach distractions and administration responses, but that's not to the point.

I applaud your analysis.*

*I also applaud Civil Bear for his interpretation of the numbers.

joe amos yaks said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Had Swanigan been allowed to come it would have been a much better season. Instead PU got the gifted CS.

---

Usually I am in agreement with most or all of what you write, but I puzzle over this one, for a lot of reasons. Why do you think Swanigan would have made the 2015-16 Cal team a lot better? Is it just because he had a top 20 recruit ranking? Didn't we have enough highly ranked recruits? Many teams have won conferences and NCAA championships with lower ranked recruits, haven't they? Cal was loaded, compared to past Cal teams, and loaded compared to many of the teams they played. The old clich, "there is only one basketball" defined that team offensively, as they failed to share that ball as a good team should. Cal started Brown, a top 5 recruit, Rabb, a top 10, Bird, a top 20, Wallace, a top 100, and a good 4-star in Mathews. Ideally, they could have had a better center, a point guard who could distribute, and a better bench. But they underachieved for what they had, IMO, even before the injuries.

Swanigan played well at Purdue, but as a freshman, he played PF opposite a 7-0 senior center, perhaps the team's best player, and another 7-2, 300 lb center backing him up. He did not have the pressure to man the post and control the paint that he would have had playing center at Cal. And he played in an offense that shared the ball, unlike Cuonzo Martin's offense. Purdue made 64% of their points with the help of an assist, while Cal made only 48% of theirs by way of an assist. Cal basically had their one-on-one players taking most of their shots, Brown, Wallace, and Mathews. Fans clamored for Rabb to get the ball more, and Bird should have touched the ball more as well, but Cal struggled a lot to get the ball to other players or to get the players open looks. Swanigan would have been one more player asking for the ball and not getting it as much as he might like.

Swanigan would have replaced Rooks or Okoroh in the starting lineup. Caleb played 26 minutes at Purdue, and Rooks and KO combined for 28 minutes at Cal. Caleb averaged 10 pts, 8 rebs, 2 assists, 3 TOs, 0.2 blocks, 2 PFs, and 46% shooting. Rooks and KO combined averaged 6 pts, 7 rebs, 1 assist, 1 TO, 1.9 blocks, 5 PFs, and 58% shooting. Caleb, IMO, would have given Cal a few more points with his scoring and an assist, but would likely have cost some points with his turnovers, while Rooks and KO shot a much better percentage and their shot blocks and paint defense perhaps reduced the opponents' scoring by a few points. Maybe Swanigan helps, but not enough to make that team a lot better, IMO. Under a different coach, with an actual offensive system, Swanigan could have more impact.

Petaluma mentioned Swanigan could shoot threes as well. Then he would be another player making threes at a low percentage. In 2016, Brown and Wallace took way too many threes, IMO, and shot them at 29%. Pathetic. What was really pathetic about it was that Martin allowed it, maybe encouraged it. Caleb shot threes as a freshman at 29%. I can say now I'd rather have Rooks or KO attempt any kind of shot at 58% than see Swanigan shoot a three at a 29% success rate.

What would have helped that Cal team more than a Swanigan would have been a real "think pass-first" point guard. Not necessarily as great as Jason Kidd or a Lonzo Ball, but maybe a TJ McConnell, to get the ball to all the stars for open shots. Even a Charlie Moore. And as things turned out, with Wallace and Bird getting hurt at the end of the season, Cal could have used another shooting guard, someone like Christopher or Grant Mullins, to come off the bench when Bird went down. Unfortunately that Cal team was greatly limited by the strategy of the coach which was so simple, it was easy to defend. They had enough recruits to win more games, but the Stone Age Neanderthal coaching of Cuonzo Martin held them back, IMO.

---

Hi there. Was Caleb Swanigan an impact player at Pu?
Consensus first-team A-A (2017)
Pete Newell Big Man (2017)
Lute Olson Award (2017)
Big Ten/14 POY (2017) and
First-team All-Big Ten/14 (2017)
Big Ten/14 All-Frosh (2016),
and . . .
Indiana's Mr. Basketball (2015)
McDonalds A-A (2015)
Parade Mag' A-A (2015).

I hear you regarding the numbers, and I support your methodology. I saw Swanigan as an impact player in HS and at Pu. I thought he could be the same at Cal, but as you know there are other analytics that don't show up in the box scores. In the end I believe his choice to play at Pu was a good one because it was family and Coach Painter seems like a winner. Is it of interest to anyone that Coach Martin was a Pu guy?

I watched (TV) the Boilers play when Swanigan was on the roster, mostly Big Ten/14 play against teams with successful coaches Coach Beilein (Meatchicken), Coach Izzo (MStu), xCoach Matta (tOSu), Coach Crean (Iu) and also uWhisky post-Bo Ryan.

How is it that a player who is heavily recruited out of high school and has a less than spectacular two years in college ends up being a big impact player at the next level? (DeAndre Jordan, LA Clippers). Maybe it's poor coaching?

And how about a player who is heavily recruited out of high school and has a spectacular college career but flat-lines at the next level? Maybe it's good coaching. Will this be the case with Swanigan?

It's mostly about coaching. Would Swanigan have played to his potential or significantly improved the Cal team? The "Stone Age Neanderthal coaching" styke suggest he would not.

It is my opinion that Coach M was poor at game and player management. He squandered talent. His ineffective offense couldn't be compensated for by his defense. All Pac-12 coaches have moments of failure uA Coach Miller seems baffled by uO Coach Altman. CM was addled by some sad assistant coach distractions and administration responses, but that's not to the point.

I applaud your analysis.*

*I also applaud Civil Bear for his interpretation of the numbers.

---

When a respected BI poster has watched a player in person or on TV, I tend to give little more credence to his evaluation than I do to the professionals who produce the recruit rankings. So I have to believe what you are saying about Caleb Swanigan. I was only looking at Swanigan the freshman, not what he did in high school or in his second year at Purdue. And all I was looking at was numbers, which is only part of the story. More important things like who his teammates were, how good they were, how good the chemistry was between them, and of course how good the coach was. The subjective is the most important, and you made the eye test, so I guess I'd have to say he made an impact as a freshman at Purdue. It is unusual for a freshman to make an impact on a veteran team, but it is easier in some ways, because there is less pressure on him, and if there is chemistry between them, the veterans will help the freshman to do well.

I'm not sure it translates into making an impact at Cal. At Cal, he would have been playing alongside other freshman, Rabb and Brown, along with veterans Wallace, Bird and Mathews. Rooks and Okoroh were both projects, learning the game, but inexperienced, and would have been of little help to Swanigan.

It also comes down to our definition of impact. I took it to mean the incoming freshman would have to be a dominant enough player to man his position as well as a talented veteran of 2 or three years would do. In that sense, I will be considered harsh when I say that I did not feel that Rabb or Brown made a big impact as freshmen. There were moments when they looked great, so I could see the potential was there, but they lacked consistency, and they did not seem to be part of a team working together, which was true more for Brown than Rabb. They both struggled with turnovers and personal fouls, and Brown struggled with shooting. There was no scheme in place to get them the ball for easy shots. I guess I am saying that if one believes that Rabb and Brown made an impact, then Swanigan could have made one also, and yet I don't think the team would have been any more successful. The coach, the veteran players, the chemistry was just not in place for that to happen, IMO.

Swanigan made quite an improvement in his second year at Purdue, and Brown has made quite an improvement over a couple of years of NBA coaching and experience. Rabb is coming along a little slower, but he has all the tools to be a good player, and I expect he will. The tall players usually take longer to develop. From what you have told us, it would seem worthwhile to watch Swanigan in the NBA to see what Cal may have missed out on.

we are talking college impact, not pro impact

had Swanigan come to Cal we would have been substantially better
sorry, I don't even think I need to explain why

I like your approach to the comments. It reminds me of a quote I recently read from and about a Cal psychologist.

To quote: "When someone says something, don't ask yourself if it is true. Ask what it might be true of." Take whatever someone has just said and try not to tear it down but to make sense of it. -ML

SFCityBear said:

---

...I did not feel that Rabb or Brown made a big impact as freshmen. There were moments when they looked great, so I could see the potential was there, but they lacked consistency, and they did not seem to be part of a team working together, which was true more for Brown than Rabb. They both struggled with turnovers and personal fouls, and Brown struggled with shooting. There was no scheme in place to get them the ball for easy shots.

---

And yet they were the key to getting Cal its best tourney seed since the invention of the three-point line. Go figure.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

...I did not feel that Rabb or Brown made a big impact as freshmen. There were moments when they looked great, so I could see the potential was there, but they lacked consistency, and they did not seem to be part of a team working together, which was true more for Brown than Rabb. They both struggled with turnovers and personal fouls, and Brown struggled with shooting. There was no scheme in place to get them the ball for easy shots.

---

And yet they were the key to getting Cal its best tourney seed since the invention of the three-point line. Go figure.

---

With the right Xs, Os & spiritual leadership (which is definitely a part of coaching), those players could have won the national championship - for which, of course, both luck and freedom from injury are also required (neither of which blessed that team)

To appreciate what Cal missed-out on with Swanigan, just look at some of his tapes from Purdue.

mikecohen said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

...I did not feel that Rabb or Brown made a big impact as freshmen. There were moments when they looked great, so I could see the potential was there, but they lacked consistency, and they did not seem to be part of a team working together, which was true more for Brown than Rabb. They both struggled with turnovers and personal fouls, and Brown struggled with shooting. There was no scheme in place to get them the ball for easy shots.

---

And yet they were the key to getting Cal its best tourney seed since the invention of the three-point line. Go figure.

---

With the right Xs, Os & spiritual leadership (which is definitely a part of coaching), those players could have won the national championship - for which, of course, both luck and freedom from injury are also required (neither of which blessed that team)

---

A spot up three point shooter would have helped also.

calumnus said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

...I did not feel that Rabb or Brown made a big impact as freshmen. There were moments when they looked great, so I could see the potential was there, but they lacked consistency, and they did not seem to be part of a team working together, which was true more for Brown than Rabb. They both struggled with turnovers and personal fouls, and Brown struggled with shooting. There was no scheme in place to get them the ball for easy shots.

---

And yet they were the key to getting Cal its best tourney seed since the invention of the three-point line. Go figure.

---

With the right Xs, Os & spiritual leadership (which is definitely a part of coaching), those players could have won the national championship - for which, of course, both luck and freedom from injury are also required (neither of which blessed that team)

---

A spot up three point shooter would have helped also.

---

do you mean like Mathews and Bird?

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

...I did not feel that Rabb or Brown made a big impact as freshmen. There were moments when they looked great, so I could see the potential was there, but they lacked consistency, and they did not seem to be part of a team working together, which was true more for Brown than Rabb. They both struggled with turnovers and personal fouls, and Brown struggled with shooting. There was no scheme in place to get them the ball for easy shots.

---

And yet they were the key to getting Cal its best tourney seed since the invention of the three-point line. Go figure.

---

With the right Xs, Os & spiritual leadership (which is definitely a part of coaching), those players could have won the national championship - for which, of course, both luck and freedom from injury are also required (neither of which blessed that team)

---

A spot up three point shooter would have helped also.

---

do you mean like Mathews and Bird?

---

oops, yes wrong year :-/

HoopDreams said:

---

we are talking college impact, not pro impact

had Swanigan come to Cal we would have been substantially better
sorry, I don't even think I need to explain why

---

Hoop Dreams:

I'm not saying that Cal would have been better or worse with Swanigan, only that it is unknown, not a sure thing, and is more of a vision or an illusion to say Cal would have been better with him or any top 20 player added to the mix of individual stars that Cal already had. Would that team have been better with him? On paper, individually, he would be an improvement over both KO and Rooks. But we are talking team here, team success, and that team of talented individuals could not/would not/did not work together to live up to as much or more than the sum of their parts, especially on offense. To be fair to their coach, Cuonzo Martin, most of the rotation were not his recruits, they were Montgomery's. So Cuonzo had to work Rabb and Brown into the mix. But very talented players usually play well together offensively. Watch any All-Star game, where coaching is a minimum, if that. On offense, Cuonzo Martin could not coach his way out of a paper bag, IMO.

You're a coach. Don't you have some ideas on how you could have utilized all that talent? With all due respect, I think when you say that Swanigan would make that team better, aren't you subconsciously thinking of how you would use him, not how Cuonzo Martin would use him? If Montgomery was the coach, if Braun was the coach, I'd say that team would have been better at playing together on offense, and adding Swanigan to the mix would make them even better.

My vision of how Swanigan would play for Cuonzo in 2016 would be taking it to the rim and taking a three sometimes. I don't figure that in Cuonzo's offense, he would see the ball any more than Rabb did, which was not enough, (IMO). They would likely be sharing those inlet passes. Swanigan's success offensively would likely depend on how many offensive boards and putbacks he could get. Defensively, I would have liked to see him. He would not bring the shot blocking that KO brought, but both KO and Rooks were not great post defenders. If Caleb could stay away from the fouls freshmen posts often make, he'd help the team in that respect.