We now have a fairly complete roster for this next season.

13,930 Views | 106 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by puget sound cal fan
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

So, who wants to guess the starting lineup?

PG: Austin
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

JHD
Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
Davis
Kelly
Anticevich

If Kelly can be a force in the paint, we are good to go. If he's soft like Anticevich, then Sueing must play the 4, and I'm less a fan of that!
Not sure about starting, but...

Austin will play as many minutes as he can, without collapsing.

McNeill, Sueing and Harris-Dyson will all play major minutes.

Bradley and Stockman will each play about 20 minutes per game.

Kelly, Anticevich, Davis and Gordon will compete for the remaining minutes (Gordon will have the advantage, if he is fully recovered.) The other three, who knows? One or two need to STEP UP and DEMAND to be on the court. Any of these guys could end up playing a lot... IF they deserve it.

Vanover will get maybe 5 minutes per game. More if you count garbage time.

As "Skip to my Lou" might say right now, were he still posting here, there's only 200 minutes per game to be had, and I just might've gone over the limit. ("Skip", if you're out there, come back!)
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear big C: bradley probably will not start. If Sueing has to start at the 4, look for dyson to start at the 3. You don't want bruised egos. Seniority still has a role to play, especially in the early season, and bradley will have to earn starting status. No chance Bradley beats out mcNeil at the 2. If Sueing starts at the 3, look for dyson and bradley to come off the bench to spell the starters. If WJ is comfortable with starting Kelly at the 4, then, Sueing starts at the 3. Game, set, match. WJ still needs badly to free up two more slots for the fall. Smith gets one slot and the other slot goes to either a PG or a big. WJ needs the other two slots to get a PG, SG and two bigs. If he does that, and the Staff feels we will get the other two slots, we will have the horses. At that point, the only question will be can the horses be driven effectively??
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

So, who wants to guess the starting lineup?

PG: Austin
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

JHD
Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
Davis
Kelly
Anticevich

If Kelly can be a force in the paint, we are good to go. If he's soft like Anticevich, then Sueing must play the 4, and I'm less a fan of that!


If Kelly is a force in the paint I can see him getting time at the 5. He is bigger than Harper Kamp and has a healthy knee and back.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

PtownBear1 said:

SFCityBear said:

Fairly complete is right. But not quite complete. Cal's roster is not yet complete enough to be able to have the fully competitive scrimmage of two complete units I'd like to see. The problem is that the 2nd unit point guard is also the 1st unit shooting guard. In an ideal world, you'd like to have a player at every position on the 2nd unit who is a bit below the player at the same position on the 1st unit, so every player has a player of almost equal ability to work against, pushing both players to get better at that position. This roster is improved over last year in that regard, but the hole remains at point guard on the 2nd unit. Ideally, you don't want to have McNeill playing two positions. Austin is likely to get tired and need some breaks, and it would be better if someone else could play some point to relieve McNeill of some of that work, so he can concentrate on scoring. I wonder if Harris-Dyson could not play his way into that role. Hopefully, Coach Jones will have him working on ball-handling, passing, and court vision, and if he has improved enough, give him a chance at playing point on the 2nd unit.







Bradley could get some time at PG
Harris-Dyson is the LAST PLAYER on this team capable of playing point guard. Great hustle and athleticism, worst handle on the squad.
Well, I agree that Harris-Dyson's handle did not look good, but I think it just looked really bad to us when compared to the rest of Cal's guards. One pretty good statistical measurement of a guard's handle is the turnovers he commits over 40 minutes. Here is a list of Cal's guards last season:

Coleman 2.5 turnovers per 40 minutes
McNeill 2.7
Hamilton 2.8
Harris-Dyson 3.7
Winston 4.4

Here's a longer list, including some of Cal's point guards of the past:

Sam Singer - 2.3 turnovers per 40 minutes (2017)
Ayinde Ubaka -2.4 (career)
Don Coleman 2.5
Darius McNeill 2.7
Justin Cobbs 2.8 (2014)
Nick Hamilton 2.8
Brandon Smith 3.2 (2011)
Tyrone Wallace 3.3 (2016)
Juwan Harris-Dyson 3.7
Charlie Moore 4.0 (2017)
Jerome Randle 4.0 (2010)
Deschon Winston 4.4
Jason Kidd 4.9 (career)

Harris-Dyson's handle statistically falls slightly below the middle of the pack, and was better than that of some really good Cal point guards, Jason Kidd and Jerome Randle. I didn't hear of any fans complaining about the handles or the turnovers of Jason Kidd, or Jerome Randle (2010), or Charlie Moore, who all made more turnovers per minute than JHD.

This year we all await the arrival of a real point guard, Paris Austin. At Boise State, Austin averaged 3.2 turnovers per 40 minutes in 2017. This is against weaker competition in the MWC, and only slightly better than Harris-Dyson's 3.7 turnover rate.

My point primarily was that in order to have a competitive scrimmage, it is best to have a good point guard defender to go against Austin every day in practice to push him to be better, because he could be facing much tougher defense in the PAC12 than he faced in the MWC. And JHD is a pretty good defender. Certainly quick enough to give Austin a test. Of course, pushing Austin to become the best defender he can be is also important, but I don't think there is another guard on Cal's roster who can play point guard well enough to challenge Austin's defense, except for McNeill, and he is already playing shooting guard alongside Austin. McNeill needs work on becoming a good shooting guard, and shouls concentrate on that, IMO.

Finally, unless he has made major improvement in his shooting over the summer, I don't see JHD earning his minutes as a shooter. He is basically a defender, a rebounder, who can drive to the rim. He is limited. Learning to play PG can only help his career, no matter what position he plays, by making his handle better, along with his vision and passing, IMO.










SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BEARUPINDC said:

The 22 year-old (#45) in this video has one year eligibility left. He could challenge
for playing time and might even be able to fill the void at PG for the second unit.





"You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave."

GO BEARS




This guy is not much of a point guard. He was sort of a "point center, as he led the fast break with getting a rebound, and before his feet hit the floor, he wheeled and passed the ball way down the floor, a la Bill Russell. And at 6'-7", he could still clean the clock of any center in the PAC12.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

Dear big C: bradley probably will not start. If Sueing has to start at the 4, look for dyson to start at the 3. You don't want bruised egos. Seniority still has a role to play, especially in the early season, and bradley will have to earn starting status. No chance Bradley beats out mcNeil at the 2. If Sueing starts at the 3, look for dyson and bradley to come off the bench to spell the starters. If WJ is comfortable with starting Kelly at the 4, then, Sueing starts at the 3. Game, set, match. WJ still needs badly to free up two more slots for the fall. Smith gets one slot and the other slot goes to either a PG or a big. WJ needs the other two slots to get a PG, SG and two bigs. If he does that, and the Staff feels we will get the other two slots, we will have the horses. At that point, the only question will be can the horses be driven effectively??
Dear helltopay1: I agree that Bradley probably won't start. If he eventually does, as a freshman, either we have injuries or he's fantastic. You know, Smith is a 2019 recruit: The Big Norwegian's schollie will be freed up by then. One or both of the schollies of the guys that got ****canned will almost certainly free up. This will also be Roman Davis' 4th year on scholarship, so his might also be open after this season. Yes, besides Smith, we will need a PG and another big. I'm excited to see the team this coming year. My tickets are in section 10; how about you?
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

concordtom said:

So, who wants to guess the starting lineup?

PG: Austin
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

JHD
Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
Davis
Kelly
Anticevich

If Kelly can be a force in the paint, we are good to go. If he's soft like Anticevich, then Sueing must play the 4, and I'm less a fan of that!


If Kelly is a force in the paint I can see him getting time at the 5. He is bigger than Harper Kamp and has a healthy knee and back.
But, a general observation I think should be noted: There are just a lot more skilled guys over 6'8" - up to 7' - around, even out past the 3-point line, than when Harper was here.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

RedlessWardrobe said:

PtownBear1 said:

SFCityBear said:

Fairly complete is right. But not quite complete. Cal's roster is not yet complete enough to be able to have the fully competitive scrimmage of two complete units I'd like to see. The problem is that the 2nd unit point guard is also the 1st unit shooting guard. In an ideal world, you'd like to have a player at every position on the 2nd unit who is a bit below the player at the same position on the 1st unit, so every player has a player of almost equal ability to work against, pushing both players to get better at that position. This roster is improved over last year in that regard, but the hole remains at point guard on the 2nd unit. Ideally, you don't want to have McNeill playing two positions. Austin is likely to get tired and need some breaks, and it would be better if someone else could play some point to relieve McNeill of some of that work, so he can concentrate on scoring. I wonder if Harris-Dyson could not play his way into that role. Hopefully, Coach Jones will have him working on ball-handling, passing, and court vision, and if he has improved enough, give him a chance at playing point on the 2nd unit.







Bradley could get some time at PG
Harris-Dyson is the LAST PLAYER on this team capable of playing point guard. Great hustle and athleticism, worst handle on the squad.
Well, I agree that Harris-Dyson's handle did not look good, but I think it just looked really bad to us when compared to the rest of Cal's guards. One pretty good statistical measurement of a guard's handle is the turnovers he commits over 40 minutes. Here is a list of Cal's guards last season:

Coleman 2.5 turnovers per 40 minutes
McNeill 2.7
Hamilton 2.8
Harris-Dyson 3.7
Winston 4.4

Here's a longer list, including some of Cal's point guards of the past:

Sam Singer - 2.3 turnovers per 40 minutes (2017)
Ayinde Ubaka -2.4 (career)
Don Coleman 2.5
Darius McNeill 2.7
Justin Cobbs 2.8 (2014)
Nick Hamilton 2.8
Brandon Smith 3.2 (2011)
Tyrone Wallace 3.3 (2016)
Juwan Harris-Dyson 3.7
Charlie Moore 4.0 (2017)
Jerome Randle 4.0 (2010)
Deschon Winston 4.4
Jason Kidd 4.9 (career)

Harris-Dyson's handle statistically falls slightly below the middle of the pack, and was better than that of some really good Cal point guards, Jason Kidd and Jerome Randle. I didn't hear of any fans complaining about the handles or the turnovers of Jason Kidd, or Jerome Randle (2010), or Charlie Moore, who all made more turnovers per minute than JHD.

This year we all await the arrival of a real point guard, Paris Austin. At Boise State, Austin averaged 3.2 turnovers per 40 minutes in 2017. This is against weaker competition in the MWC, and only slightly better than Harris-Dyson's 3.7 turnover rate.

My point primarily was that in order to have a competitive scrimmage, it is best to have a good point guard defender to go against Austin every day in practice to push him to be better, because he could be facing much tougher defense in the PAC12 than he faced in the MWC. And JHD is a pretty good defender. Certainly quick enough to give Austin a test. Of course, pushing Austin to become the best defender he can be is also important, but I don't think there is another guard on Cal's roster who can play point guard well enough to challenge Austin's defense, except for McNeill, and he is already playing shooting guard alongside Austin. McNeill needs work on becoming a good shooting guard, and shouls concentrate on that, IMO.

Finally, unless he has made major improvement in his shooting over the summer, I don't see JHD earning his minutes as a shooter. He is basically a defender, a rebounder, who can drive to the rim. He is limited. Learning to play PG can only help his career, no matter what position he plays, by making his handle better, along with his vision and passing, IMO.

Of course, one reason Jason's T.O. ratio was so high (obviously) was that he was probably the most creative passer on the planet (which kinda outweighed the T.O.s). Steph has the same profile in that regard.

Re JHD, FWIW: I think he has one of the biggest upsides on the team - because the superior vision, not-to-be-denied spirit and athleticism which creates those great drives, can be translated into creative passing; and because peripheral and mid-range shooting can be learned by athletes with those attributes (to the max - I think of Jason Richardson, whose shooting was poor when he joined the Dubs, and became reliable, and Aaron Gordon who used to regularly choose an uncontested drive over an uncontested corner 3, and no longer does that, and Jason Kidd, whose 3s here were largely absent, and over his career became definitely professional level if not higher). He seems to have both the understanding that all those things are necessary to a large ambition, and the willingness and belief to put in the extraordinary level of work necessary to get it done -- and, just on the surface, it looks to me like there are guys on the staff who can give him the coaching necessary to help him get there.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

calumnus said:

concordtom said:

So, who wants to guess the starting lineup?

PG: Austin
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

JHD
Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
Davis
Kelly
Anticevich

If Kelly can be a force in the paint, we are good to go. If he's soft like Anticevich, then Sueing must play the 4, and I'm less a fan of that!


If Kelly is a force in the paint I can see him getting time at the 5. He is bigger than Harper Kamp and has a healthy knee and back.
But, a general observation I think should be noted: There are just a lot more skilled guys over 6'8" - up to 7' - around, even out past the 3-point line, than when Harper was here.


Bigs when Harper was here:

07-08 Harper Kamp, Ryan Anderson, Jamal Boykin, Devon Hardin, Jordan Wilkes

08-09 Harper Kamp, Jamal Boykin, Jordan Wilkes, Max Zhang

09-10 Kamp Injury, redshirt

10-11 Harper Kamp, Sanders-Frisen, Richard Solomon, Bak Bak, Robert Thurman

11-12 Harper Kamp, David Kravish, Richard Solomon, Robert Thurman, Bak Bak, Christian Behrens

I think there were always other bigs on the team (08-09 was clearly the least depth), but the coach felt Harper provided the most inside. If Kelly is "a beast inside" I could see something similar happening, unless two or more of the other bigs take a big step up.

stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

So, who wants to guess the starting lineup?
I'm more interested in who gets minutes. I suppose we'll substitute as much as we can to keep fresh bodies in the game so minutes should be available for anyone who is playing well. I hope that includes all of the newcomers but time will tell.

One twist is for once both of our centers seem to have some outside shooting ability. If they (and Austin) pass well this could open up opportunities for slashing wings, of which we have plenty.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

So, who wants to guess the starting lineup?

PG: Austin
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

JHD
Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
Davis
Kelly
Anticevich

If Kelly can be a force in the paint, we are good to go. If he's soft like Anticevich, then Sueing must play the 4, and I'm less a fan of that!
I should add, I think Gordon would be one of the best on the team if he were healthy. Time will tell.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

mikecohen said:

calumnus said:

concordtom said:

So, who wants to guess the starting lineup?

PG: Austin
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

JHD
Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
Davis
Kelly
Anticevich

If Kelly can be a force in the paint, we are good to go. If he's soft like Anticevich, then Sueing must play the 4, and I'm less a fan of that!


If Kelly is a force in the paint I can see him getting time at the 5. He is bigger than Harper Kamp and has a healthy knee and back.
But, a general observation I think should be noted: There are just a lot more skilled guys over 6'8" - up to 7' - around, even out past the 3-point line, than when Harper was here.


Bigs when Harper was here:

07-08 Harper Kamp, Ryan Anderson, Jamal Boykin, Devon Hardin, Jordan Wilkes

08-09 Harper Kamp, Jamal Boykin, Jordan Wilkes, Max Zhang

09-10 Kamp Injury, redshirt

10-11 Harper Kamp, Sanders-Frisen, Richard Solomon, Bak Bak, Robert Thurman

11-12 Harper Kamp, David Kravish, Richard Solomon, Robert Thurman, Bak Bak, Christian Behrens

I think there were always other bigs on the team (08-09 was clearly the least depth), but the coach felt Harper provided the most inside. If Kelly is "a beast inside" I could see something similar happening, unless two or more of the other bigs take a big step up.
Key is the word "skilled". Except for Anderson, Harper was the most skilled. Thurman had flashes. None of the other guys meaningfully bigger than Harper were close
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You cannot use last year's JHD's turnovers per minute as a measuring stick to other point guards when in fact he wasn't even playing point guard during those very minutes. If he had been playing pg he would have been handling the ball even more than he did within those minutes thus even a higher turnover ratio.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

You cannot use last year's JHD's turnovers per minute as a measuring stick to other point guards when in fact he wasn't even playing point guard during those very minutes. If he had been playing pg he would have been handling the ball even more than he did within those minutes thus even a higher turnover ratio.

He knows that. It's just his M.O. to spend hours cherry picking stats in the hopes you are either not paying attention or dumber than rocks.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

calumnus said:

mikecohen said:

calumnus said:

concordtom said:

So, who wants to guess the starting lineup?

PG: Austin
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

JHD
Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
Davis
Kelly
Anticevich

If Kelly can be a force in the paint, we are good to go. If he's soft like Anticevich, then Sueing must play the 4, and I'm less a fan of that!


If Kelly is a force in the paint I can see him getting time at the 5. He is bigger than Harper Kamp and has a healthy knee and back.
But, a general observation I think should be noted: There are just a lot more skilled guys over 6'8" - up to 7' - around, even out past the 3-point line, than when Harper was here.


Bigs when Harper was here:

07-08 Harper Kamp, Ryan Anderson, Jamal Boykin, Devon Hardin, Jordan Wilkes

08-09 Harper Kamp, Jamal Boykin, Jordan Wilkes, Max Zhang

09-10 Kamp Injury, redshirt

10-11 Harper Kamp, Sanders-Frisen, Richard Solomon, Bak Bak, Robert Thurman

11-12 Harper Kamp, David Kravish, Richard Solomon, Robert Thurman, Bak Bak, Christian Behrens

I think there were always other bigs on the team (08-09 was clearly the least depth), but the coach felt Harper provided the most inside. If Kelly is "a beast inside" I could see something similar happening, unless two or more of the other bigs take a big step up.
Key is the word "skilled". Except for Anderson, Harper was the most skilled. Thurman had flashes. None of the other guys meaningfully bigger than Harper were close
Regarding Thurman's "flashes", are you suggesting that he was more skilled than Boykin or Sanders-Frison or Solomon or Kravish? Because each of those guys was way, way better.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:



Regarding Thurman's "flashes", are you suggesting that he was more skilled than Boykin or Sanders-Frison or Solomon or Kravish? Because each of those guys was way, way better.
...and equal to or more skilled than HK.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thurman was big and developeda decent inside game. Upon occasion he could make the 15 foot jumper as evidenced by a 20 point game at Washington. He played hard and did not travel like Lee, who was obviously much bettter.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

mikecohen said:

calumnus said:

mikecohen said:

calumnus said:

concordtom said:

So, who wants to guess the starting lineup?

PG: Austin
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

JHD
Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
Davis
Kelly
Anticevich

If Kelly can be a force in the paint, we are good to go. If he's soft like Anticevich, then Sueing must play the 4, and I'm less a fan of that!


If Kelly is a force in the paint I can see him getting time at the 5. He is bigger than Harper Kamp and has a healthy knee and back.
But, a general observation I think should be noted: There are just a lot more skilled guys over 6'8" - up to 7' - around, even out past the 3-point line, than when Harper was here.


Bigs when Harper was here:

07-08 Harper Kamp, Ryan Anderson, Jamal Boykin, Devon Hardin, Jordan Wilkes

08-09 Harper Kamp, Jamal Boykin, Jordan Wilkes, Max Zhang

09-10 Kamp Injury, redshirt

10-11 Harper Kamp, Sanders-Frisen, Richard Solomon, Bak Bak, Robert Thurman

11-12 Harper Kamp, David Kravish, Richard Solomon, Robert Thurman, Bak Bak, Christian Behrens

I think there were always other bigs on the team (08-09 was clearly the least depth), but the coach felt Harper provided the most inside. If Kelly is "a beast inside" I could see something similar happening, unless two or more of the other bigs take a big step up.
Key is the word "skilled". Except for Anderson, Harper was the most skilled. Thurman had flashes. None of the other guys meaningfully bigger than Harper were close
Regarding Thurman's "flashes", are you suggesting that he was more skilled than Boykin or Sanders-Frison or Solomon or Kravish? Because each of those guys was way, way better.
I (no joke or irony) apologize for my lack of clarity. I've got two categories in mind: (1) size (i.e., 6'10" and above), and (2) skill. So Thurman was 6'11", and didn't look like much of a prospect; but, from time to time, he could really light it up (and, under pressure in big games, with the team on his back. Solomon was not nearly the scorer; and, although he (Solomon) was a first class rebounder, Thurman wasn't so bad at that. All the other guys were about Harper's height.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thurman played great against unlv in the first round off the ncaa in San Jose
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

You cannot use last year's JHD's turnovers per minute as a measuring stick to other point guards when in fact he wasn't even playing point guard during those very minutes. If he had been playing pg he would have been handling the ball even more than he did within those minutes thus even a higher turnover ratio.
In that first list of players from last season's Cal team, I did not compare JHD's turnover statistics only to other point guards. I compared them first to the other Cal guards who got rotation minutes (thereby excluding McCullogh). Darius McNeill played most of his time at point guard, but played some of his time at shooting guard. Don Coleman played most of his time at shooting guard, but some of his time at point guard. Nick Hamilton played all his minutes at shooting guard or a wing, and did not play any minutes at point guard, to my recollection. The only guard in that first list who played all his minutes at point guard was Deschon Winston, again to my best recollection.

You are correct that a guard who might switch from a guard or wing position to playing point guard might make more turnovers, especially because the point guard is called upon to make more passes and passes are often deflected or intercepted. It is also the case that the player receiving the pass sometimes does not get to the spot where he is supposed to catch the ball, and on other times, he may take his eye off the point guard or the ball, and fumble the pass. In those cases the point guard usually is credited with a turnover when it was not his fault.

However, you were talking about his handle, and JHD handling the ball more would not automatically mean more turnovers. His turnovers emanating from a careless handle, that I remember, were mostly on drives to the basket. Drives to the basket usually are done in heavy traffic, as you may draw more defenders the closer you get to the hoop. Deschon Winston, who had the worst-looking handle I've ever seen in a Cal rotation player, made more turnovers per minute than any Cal guard last season, without hardly ever driving to the basket! He lost the ball bringing it up the floor, and he lost it in the half-court by not keeping his body between the ball and his defender. Can we for a moment also consider the possibility that JHD's handle might get better, the more he uses it? A point guard nowadays dribbles the ball every time he touches it, while a shooting guard or a wing dribbles the ball far less often. Much of a point guard's dribbling is not tightly contested, while nearly all of a shooting guard's or wing's dribble is contested.

I'm suggesting that JHD be given a shot at 2nd unit PG. It is only a daily scrimmage in practice, and only to keep McNeill or Paris from getting worn out, and have a better defender guarding Austin. If somehow JHD shines there, then try him in a game. What do you have to lose? And JHD, who doesn't shoot well, may not get much time at the shooting guard behind McNeill and Bradley. But don't worry, Wyking Jones probably won't try this at all.










GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

You cannot use last year's JHD's turnovers per minute as a measuring stick to other point guards when in fact he wasn't even playing point guard during those very minutes. If he had been playing pg he would have been handling the ball even more than he did within those minutes thus even a higher turnover ratio.
But you can use turnover percentage, which is the percentage of the players used possessions that ended in a turnover.

JHD's was 23.3%, 3rd worst on the team of any player playing over 5 mpg.

https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/california-golden-bears-team-stats?season=2017&category=ASSISTS&sort=4&time=0&pos=0&team=0

By comparison, Austin's in 2016-17 was 17.7%.

https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/boise-state-broncos-team-stats?season=2016&category=ASSISTS&sort=4&time=0&pos=0&team=0
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:



I'm suggesting that JHD be given a shot at 2nd unit PG.
....Wyking Jones probably won't try this at all.
Wyking gets paid a million dollars to disagree with you.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for that data. Just like the stats I gave, your stats might be meaningful, except no one knows for sure how JHD would perform at point guard with these particular teammates and this particular coach. The stats you gave are interesting, and what jumped out at me was Hamilton's TO% being so high. At 32%, worst on the team by far. And Coleman at 11% was the best on the team by far.

The stats for Austin, either TO/min or TO%, may not be meaningful because JHD was playing against tougher competition that was Austin:

According to ESPN, Cal's Strength of Schedule at the end of last season was 22, and Boise State in 2016-17 had an SOS of 104. in 2018, Cal had an non-conference SOS of 44, and Boise in 2017 had a non-conference SOS of 162.

This could open another can of worms, because I couldn't find two websites or services who agreed with ESPN on these SOS numbers. They all may use different definitions or formulas to determine their SOS numbers. I am sure that if the numbers I gave for ESPN SOS are wrong, then you or someone on the board will correct me. In any case, a simple perusal of the team schedules for Cal in 2018 vs Boise in 2017 might tell us Cal had the tougher schedule. Of course the individual matchups are what is most important, that is did JHD or Austin play against tougher individual defenders on average? I don't know. All that being said, JHD probably did play against tougher competition, and his handle was not very consistent. Nice drives to the rim sometimes, and sometimes a fumble. He's a freshman, and like most, a work in progress.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

SFCityBear said:



I'm suggesting that JHD be given a shot at 2nd unit PG.
....Wyking Jones probably won't try this at all.
Wyking gets paid a million dollars to disagree with you.
Then he is highly overpaid, or you are greatly underpaid, based on the volume of disagreements for each of you with me. And if the AD is interested, I can provide him with several fans who will disagree with me on everything all day long, for free. Cut Wyking Jones salary down to a C-note per game, and use the rest of the million to help save Cal baseball and Cal track and field.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Both.
People used to do this game for free.
Salaries are a joke these days, even the athletes' who excite fans into buying tickets.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Both.
People used to do this game for free.
Salaries are a joke these days, even the athletes' who excite fans into buying tickets.


You'd rather that money went to the owners? Stand up guys like Dan Gilbert? Guys who have more money they could ever spend like Lacob?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We were talking about Wyking's million, thus college, thus I'd rather money go to players - college players.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

We were talking about Wyking's million, thus college, thus I'd rather money go to players - college players.

Ok. It seemed like you expanded to pro players' salaries being a joke when you said: "Salaries are a joke these days, even the athletes' who excite fans into buying tickets."
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

concordtom said:

Also, you forgot to add walk-ons and wasted scholarship slots thru roster mismanagement blundering.
I get it, you have strong convictions about this. I got to a same place with Ben Braun, so I understand. But Jesus, give it a rest already.
Braun was very far from perfect, but even in his worst years at Cal, the team won at least 6 conference games. 6 conference wins is probably Wyking's ceiling as a head coach.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

concordtom said:

We were talking about Wyking's million, thus college, thus I'd rather money go to players - college players.

Ok. It seemed like you expanded to pro players' salaries being a joke when you said: "Salaries are a joke these days, even the athletes' who excite fans into buying tickets."

It's a mosh pit....

Yes, tons of money in basketball.
Pro players making mint.
Wyking making a mill to figure out that JHD ain't a point guard (JHD could tell you that himself).

Meanwhile, college players making none.

This is not what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they said, "all men are created equal".
I mean, at least they put in the specific clause about if you're black you were only worth 3/5th, if you were a woman or owned no land you couldn't vote. But nowhere do I see where it said that you had to to be one of the top 450 players on earth, at least 19, or the coach before you could be paid.

It's a situation where there are billions, and nobody gets paid, nobodyngets paid, and then wham, if you're lucky, you get PAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIID !!! Otherwise, you ain't gettin' paid.

Kinda like the way of the middle class and income distribution overall.
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Whichever stats you want to use, if you watched Cal play last year and you know anything about basketball it is obvious that JHD is NOT a point guard.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

GMP said:

concordtom said:

We were talking about Wyking's million, thus college, thus I'd rather money go to players - college players.

Ok. It seemed like you expanded to pro players' salaries being a joke when you said: "Salaries are a joke these days, even the athletes' who excite fans into buying tickets."

It's a mosh pit....

Yes, tons of money in basketball.
Pro players making mint.
Wyking making a mill to figure out that JHD ain't a point guard (JHD could tell you that himself).

Meanwhile, college players making none.

This is not what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they said, "all men are created equal".
I mean, at least they put in the specific clause about if you're black you were only worth 3/5th, if you were a woman or owned no land you couldn't vote. But nowhere do I see where it said that you had to to be one of the top 450 players on earth, at least 19, or the coach before you could be paid.

It's a situation where there are billions, and nobody gets paid, nobodyngets paid, and then wham, if you're lucky, you get PAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIID !!! Otherwise, you ain't gettin' paid.

Kinda like the way of the middle class and income distribution overall.



There are plenty of places they can get paid money to play basketball. Yet they continue to choose the package colleges offer.

For 99%, nobody in the US would watch them play if they weren't tied to a school. They'd get at best a minor league baseball rookie league existence, and probably not that. They get an education, free room and board, better training facilities than they can get anywhere else, free strength and conditioning training from experts, and the best coaching outside the NBA. All this costs the colleges a lot of cheddar, pretty much all the cheddar that they make. If the players want something else, go get it. It's there.

The problem with your position is it looks at a handful of schools that make a ton of money and a handful of players that could make a ton of money. Most schools don't and most players can't.

If anyone is screwing with their earning potential, it is the NBA. If they set the G League up as a farm system, expanded the draft a couple rounds, and took high school players, the guys that could get paid would as happens in baseball.

As for there being no middle class, that is your life if you choose to make your living in the entertainment industry. Ask actors or singers who haven't made it. No one wants to pay a lot for second tier entertainment
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All well said.
My problem is that the rules intentionally shut the players out.
I believe in the Invisible Hand and that we should let market forces have more of a play. The colleges want the money to subsidize other sports and as much as I like those other sports, I don't think that's how things should be handled.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

GMP said:

concordtom said:

We were talking about Wyking's million, thus college, thus I'd rather money go to players - college players.

Ok. It seemed like you expanded to pro players' salaries being a joke when you said: "Salaries are a joke these days, even the athletes' who excite fans into buying tickets."

It's a mosh pit....

Yes, tons of money in basketball.
Pro players making mint.
Wyking making a mill to figure out that JHD ain't a point guard (JHD could tell you that himself).

Meanwhile, college players making none.

This is not what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they said, "all men are created equal".
I mean, at least they put in the specific clause about if you're black you were only worth 3/5th, if you were a woman or owned no land you couldn't vote. But nowhere do I see where it said that you had to to be one of the top 450 players on earth, at least 19, or the coach before you could be paid.

It's a situation where there are billions, and nobody gets paid, nobodyngets paid, and then wham, if you're lucky, you get PAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIID !!! Otherwise, you ain't gettin' paid.

Kinda like the way of the middle class and income distribution overall.



There are plenty of places they can get paid money to play basketball. Yet they continue to choose the package colleges offer.

For 99%, nobody in the US would watch them play if they weren't tied to a school. They'd get at best a minor league baseball rookie league existence, and probably not that. They get an education, free room and board, better training facilities than they can get anywhere else, free strength and conditioning training from experts, and the best coaching outside the NBA. All this costs the colleges a lot of cheddar, pretty much all the cheddar that they make. If the players want something else, go get it. It's there.

The problem with your position is it looks at a handful of schools that make a ton of money and a handful of players that could make a ton of money. Most schools don't and most players can't.

If anyone is screwing with their earning potential, it is the NBA. If they set the G League up as a farm system, expanded the draft a couple rounds, and took high school players, the guys that could get paid would as happens in baseball.

As for there being no middle class, that is your life if you choose to make your living in the entertainment industry. Ask actors or singers who haven't made it. No one wants to pay a lot for second tier entertainment
agree. but you left off some of the biggest values of players going to play for a D1 college ... exposure (basically auditions for the pros, either the nba, g league or overseas, and BRANDING.

the top college players build their Brand playing in college. No minor league team is going to do that (can you name one minor league baseball player?)
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

Whichever stats you want to use, if you watched Cal play last year and you know anything about basketball it is obvious that JHD is NOT a point guard.
Redless,

There is no need to resort to a personal insult to win your point. I've already implied that JHD IS NOT A POINT GUARD. If you don't like statistics, that is fine with me. The point is the current Cal roster has only one scholarship point guard. I saw enough of Cal last season to know that while Darius McNeill did an admirable job playing the point guard position to form the opinion that McNeill is not a point guard, either. Or at least not a very good one. He is a shooter, a scorer. He does not have what you youngsters call a good enough "handle," as was evident with his struggles in the backcourt bringing the ball up the floor against pressure. His handle was adequate, but not good enough to play point guard for a team we all want to compete against the best teams.

My problem is Wyking's problem, and that will be how do I put together a group of ten players, two for each position, to make up two teams to have a very competitive scrimmage to push all ten players to progress and get better playing together to become a better Cal team when we take the floor for each game next season.

Helltopay1 pointed this out early on: It looks like Wyking Jones has failed to sign a backup point guard to play behind, and play for Paris Austin, when Austin must come out of the game, which he will. He averaged only 28 minutes at Boise St, and that could well be less at Cal. And I'd add that player has to be able to push Austin in practice scrimmages to play his best.

My biggest concern is to find a player on the bench who can play the toughest defense against Austin in practice scrimmages. If you don't like JHD for this job, then let's look at the choices among the other guards:

1. McNeill. Every minute he plays against Austin in a scrimmage, is a minute lost from the time he should be playing WITH Austin as the two guard. Same problem Cal had last season with McNeill and Coleman.

2. Matt Bradley. CalBears.com roster lists him as a guard, but BI's Cal roster lists him as a forward. We know nothing about whether he would be a capable point guard foil for Austin. Cal lost most of their scoring from last season to transfer and graduation. McNeill and Sueing are the only proven scorers. We don't know if Austin can score against PAC12 guards. Bradley averaged 34 points in his junior year, scored 75 in one game. I don't think Bradley was recruited to play point. He was recruited to score the ball.

3. Jacob Orender. A walk-on who played in 3 games last season. At Lafayette, he played in 12 games, had 1 assist, 1 three, and 1 rebound, total. You be the judge.

4. James Zhao. Mystery man. A walk-on, but interesting. 6-3 size, and played on China's U17 team, averaging 22 ppg. We have no idea whether he could play point.

5. David Serge. Another walk-on. Actually was the team's manager for two years and now has joined the playing roster. No other information on him. Real long shot.

6. Harris-Dyson. His handle is not good enough to play point, on that we agree. So how do you feel about his defense? I think he is a pretty good defender, with plenty of upside defensively. He would be a test for Austin. He is quick, and that is why I want to try him at point guard. Plus, he can't shoot. As a shooting guard or small forward, he will not play much this season behind McNeill, Sueing, Gordon, and Bradley. He brings nothing to the table except defense, drives to the basket, some knack for rebounds, and hustle.

Unless Zhao emerges, I'd rather play JHD on that 2nd unit opposite Austin, than play either McNeill or Bradley, because we need their scoring more than anything. JHD is not a point guard. But he is a freshman and might be able to grow into it, after a lot of time, is all. Are you saying his future is cast in stone, that he can't be taught new skills? On

So, for this coming season, who would you play against Austin in practice, and play behind him in games, and why?







Page 2 of 4
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.