Kelly and Vanover have looked to me, in my limited time watching them, that they can be offensive weapons. However, our offense is not constructed to use them.

Weaves around the perimeter exclude them.

How about some pick and rolls, using them as screeners, who can then roll to the hoop?

The few times that they got the ball, they showed offensive promise.

Hard to understand.

I think we need an SFCityBear analysis in the form of Memo to Coach Jones.

bearister said:

---

I think we need an SFCityBear analysis in the form of Memo to Coach Jones.

---

What would shocky say?
Wait, delete that!

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

I think we need an SFCityBear analysis in the form of Memo to Coach Jones.

---

What would shocky say?
Wait, delete that!

---

I need someone with more hoop knowledge than me (an easy bar to clear) to opine on the following: Affix percentages to how much of our play is improv vs playing by design. To this uneducated eye it appears the scale tips in favor of improv.

Ya think?

bearister said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

I think we need an SFCityBear analysis in the form of Memo to Coach Jones.

---

What would shocky say?
Wait, delete that!

---

I need someone with more hoop knowledge than me (an easy bar to clear) to opine on the following: Affix percentages to how much of our play is improv vs playing by design. To this uneducated eye it appears the scale tips in favor of improv.

---

Not claiming more hoop knowledge, but it appears to me that there is sometimes a design, but it is executed poorly enough that it appears as improv.

This group is young and is struggling with identifying what the defense is giving them and exploiting it.

bearister said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

I think we need an SFCityBear analysis in the form of Memo to Coach Jones.

---

What would shocky say?
Wait, delete that!

---

I need someone with more hoop knowledge than me (an easy bar to clear) to opine on the following: Affix percentages to how much of our play is improv vs playing by design. To this uneducated eye it appears the scale tips in favor of improv.

---

If by "design", you mean a set play, we hardly ever do that. To delve deeper into your analogy, I'm sure you can imagine improv with different levels of expertise. The Warriors pretty much improv all the time, but at the highest level: Each of the five players on the court are doing something that is likely to end up in success, though not every time down the court. Cal is improvising with a lower level of expertise.

If you want to go all the way with this, we're like a college jazz band improvising. It ain't the finest pros, but it's better than lower levels. Just like in jazz, improvisational basketball is a lot more than the players just doing whatever they feel like doing.

Our four guys w/o the ball need to know what to do while the guy with the ball has his "solo". The guy taking the solo needs to know when to let the other guys take a few bars.

we run set plays when passing it in from out of bounds
we run set plays after TOs
most or all HS level and college teams do the same

except for the above, we run sets on occasion

the easiest one to recognize is the weave. there are several options that our weave can create, and it's up to the players to execute and recognize when to take an option. actually it works well for us (not every time, but often enough to run it). most of the options taken have been dives to the hoop, but we've also shot out of it, and passed out of it for scores

I would like to see more off the ball screens when playing against a man defense. I see frequent on the ball screens, but don't often see off the ball screens except during plays.

interesting that we've played against mostly man defenses, although I think Detroit was a zone team.

the ball is still too sticky in players hands, including Paris, and although we've improved our fast breaks from last year, the ball handler too often keeps it, instead of passing it, or keeps it too long (making it difficult for the player to finish)

HoopDreams said:

---

we run set plays when passing it in from out of bounds
we run set plays after TOs
most or all HS level and college teams do the same

except for the above, we run sets on occasion

the easiest one to recognize is the weave. there are several options that our weave can create, and it's up to the players to execute and recognize when to take an option. actually it works well for us (not every time, but often enough to run it). most of the options taken have been dives to the hoop, but we've also shot out of it, and passed out of it for scores

I would like to see more off the ball screens when playing against a man defense. I see frequent on the ball screens, but don't often see off the ball screens except during plays.

interesting that we've played against mostly man defenses, although I think Detroit was a zone team.

the ball is still too sticky in players hands, including Paris, and although we've improved our fast breaks from last year, the ball handler too often keeps it, instead of passing it, or keeps it too long (making it difficult for the player to finish)

---

Good analysis, HD. I think part of the problem is that our players are still a touch slow reacting; often a pass is a touch late and what was an open look closes. In addition, receivers of passes are often not fully prepared. Sueing, in particular hasn't yet gotten the hang of being set (like Klay Thompson) before receiving a pass outside the 3-point line so he can catch and shoot instead of needing to dribble to set himself (which usually winds up in his having to pass up the shot).

HD - Can you think of a time when we initiated any offense from that weave? To me, all it does it take 10 seconds off the shot clock and is the equivalent of the defense running a 3/4 court press to do the exact same thing.

80% of our offense is exactly as you said, rotating around the perimeter until someone drives for either a (usually) contested shot in the paint or a kick out which has occasionally been successful for us. The only set I'm seeing, which I thought was pretty effective actually, was the 2 man game with Austin and Vanover initiated with the ball screen. Beyond that, the offense is as basic as an offense can possibly get. Maybe there's good reason for that with a young team, but I don't yet see how it's effective for us.

Just watched the Gonzaga/Duke offenses and I felt like I was watching a totally different sport. The amount of off-ball movement, screening, etc is probably 5x what we do. We're obviously not at a point where we can try to exploit match-ups but i'm definitely a little concerned that we can find enough good looks and high percentage shots in rhythm with what we're doing now

I agree completely with South Bender.

I also think that Vanover needs more minutes. If the coaches feel strength and stamina are issues, I'd say they are being over protective. He's only playing 10 minutes. There are usually 2-3 time outs for something in 10 minutes, so players get a breather then. I just don't see how we can keep him off the floor. We are getting out-rebounded in every game, and these are not tall teams doing it to us. Kelly is our best or 2nd best rebounder, and he got only 2 rebounds against St.Johns. Having Vanover in the game will create problems for a defense. He gets shoved around, and may not get rebounds himself, but on the offensive end, teams will have to guard him inside or outside, because he is a threat to score, and that may make it easier for Kelly to rebound. Defensively, he changes the game when he is in the game, because of his ability to block or alter shots. I also like his hands, which are soft, and he can catch balls and hold onto them better, unlike Rooks and Okoroh before him.

Who do you sit down? Kelly?

SFCityBear - Agree that Vaniver is contributing good minutes. I think the key for him is not his total minutes but his continuous minutes. I'd rather see more frequent substititons because I don't think he can bust it for more than 3-4 minutes at a time. That's ok. Just sit him down and bring him back in. He changes the offense completely and I really like what he can become. Defensively, it's more of a mixed bag. He does shows flashes of being disruptive when he's more stationary but he also sometimes get caught up too high, forced to move his feet and its game over. That can be coached up though.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

HD - Can you think of a time when we initiated any offense from that weave? To me, all it does it take 10 seconds off the shot clock and is the equivalent of the defense running a 3/4 court press to do the exact same thing.

80% of our offense is exactly as you said, rotating around the perimeter until someone drives for either a (usually) contested shot in the paint or a kick out which has occasionally been successful for us. The only set I'm seeing, which I thought was pretty effective actually, was the 2 man game with Austin and Vanover initiated with the ball screen. Beyond that, the offense is as basic as an offense can possibly get. Maybe there's good reason for that with a young team, but I don't yet see how it's effective for us.

Just watched the Gonzaga/Duke offenses and I felt like I was watching a totally different sport. The amount of off-ball movement, screening, etc is probably 5x what we do. We're obviously not at a point where we can try to exploit match-ups but i'm definitely a little concerned that we can find enough good looks and high percentage shots in rhythm with what we're doing now

---

I agree that the weave we are using is not very effective. Maybe they are just using it tire out the defenders, because it sure isn't producing many buckets. This is not the Indiana weave or the box weave, as far as I can tell. It is definitely not the Pete Newell weave which was a 5-man weave. It isn't the the Mike Montgomery weave. It is just simple dribble and handoffs among the guards and the wing. As South Bender pointed out, the weave we are using does not involve the bigs, so it is a 3-man weave. Newell's weave was a screen-handoff weave, where the dribbler hands off the ball to a teammate, and also at the same exact time, he sets a screen on the teammate's defender. The beauty of it is that the dribbler can't be called for setting a moving screen, You run this with all 5 players for a while, and pretty soon someone will be wide open for a layup or short jumper. I can't remember how it works, it just does. I watched Newell's teams run it for years, and I'd swear it was successful 70-80% of the time. Cal did not run it on every play, just when they really needed a basket to put a nail in the coffin. Or so it seemed.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

SFCityBear - Agree that Vaniver is contributing good minutes. I think the key for him is not his total minutes but his continuous minutes. I'd rather see more frequent substititons because I don't think he can bust it for more than 3-4 minutes at a time. That's ok. Just sit him down and bring him back in. He changes the offense completely and I really like what he can become. Defensively, it's more of a mixed bag. He does shows flashes of being disruptive when he's more stationary but he also sometimes get caught up too high, forced to move his feet and its game over. That can be coached up though.

---

One thing I don't like about many teams playing today is that they have their bigs go out to the perimeter and beyond to defend someone. We did it with Solomon, and Kravish. We even had Rooks and Okoroh and Rabb out there. Sending Vanover out there cost us some baskets. Tall players go out there, and get screened out of a play, or they switch on to a guard, and almost any guard can beat a big off the bounce, and blow by him to the basket. Vanover gets killed out there. What ever happened to the center not leaving the area of the basket on defense? Can any of us remember how Joe Hagler held the ball for 8 minutes trying to draw Bill Russell out away from the basket when Cal played USF? Russell was not stupid, and neither was his coach, and they did not fall for the bait. They beat Cal, and went on to win the NCAA title.

oskidunker said:

---

Who do you sit down? Kelly?

---

For me the main reasons to play Vanover are to help our front line get more rebounds and play better defense, so I would not sit Kelly for Vanover, unless Kelly needs a breather. I would sit a wing, Bradley. He is not scoring a lot, and makes freshmen mistakes, so I'f rather bring him off the bench, instead of Vanover. I only suggest playing Vanover 20 minutes, maybe 25, instead of the 10 minutes he is now playing.

SFCity:

While I agree that having bigs go out to defend on the perimeter is problematic, there are two differences between then and now. The first is the "switch on every screen" defense that the Warriors popularized. It is effective because you don't have the problem of a really good screen getting a shooter open from 3. Also, fighting through screens is more difficult now, because of the tendency of officials to call off-ball fouls. The second, which is much more important, however, is the fact that many centers can shoot from outside now. If Cal's opponents don't come out from under the basket against Vanover, for instance, he can consistently hit an open jumper.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

SFCityBear - Agree that Vaniver is contributing good minutes. I think the key for him is not his total minutes but his continuous minutes. I'd rather see more frequent substititons because I don't think he can bust it for more than 3-4 minutes at a time. That's ok. Just sit him down and bring him back in. He changes the offense completely and I really like what he can become. Defensively, it's more of a mixed bag. He does shows flashes of being disruptive when he's more stationary but he also sometimes get caught up too high, forced to move his feet and its game over. That can be coached up though.

---

agree with this

SFCityBear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

SFCityBear - Agree that Vaniver is contributing good minutes. I think the key for him is not his total minutes but his continuous minutes. I'd rather see more frequent substititons because I don't think he can bust it for more than 3-4 minutes at a time. That's ok. Just sit him down and bring him back in. He changes the offense completely and I really like what he can become. Defensively, it's more of a mixed bag. He does shows flashes of being disruptive when he's more stationary but he also sometimes get caught up too high, forced to move his feet and its game over. That can be coached up though.

---

One thing I don't like about many teams playing today is that they have their bigs go out to the perimeter and beyond to defend someone. We did it with Solomon, and Kravish. We even had Rooks and Okoroh and Rabb out there. Sending Vanover out there cost us some baskets. Tall players go out there, and get screened out of a play, or they switch on to a guard, and almost any guard can beat a big off the bounce, and blow by him to the basket. Vanover gets killed out there. What ever happened to the center not leaving the area of the basket on defense? Can any of us remember how Joe Hagler held the ball for 8 minutes trying to draw Bill Russell out away from the basket when Cal played USF? Russell was not stupid, and neither was his coach, and they did not fall for the bait. They beat Cal, and went on to win the NCAA title.

---

I also don't like our bigs hedging up high, but I am surprised how infrequently the strategy burns us when the right player does it.

hedges are designed to prevent the ball handler from turning the corner. if you've got a great perimeter defender, you don't need the hedge (but we don't)

I totally agree that Vanover should be the LAST player to do this. Actually, anytime he gets farther than 10 feet from the basket there are problems. I think this is why his minutes have been limited (along with his stamina)

A player like Solomon or Lee should be pretty effective at it, but again, I really don't like the approach, except in certain situations and with certain players

we have scored points off the weave, but the players have mostly taken the drive option, or to pull it out (when none of the options were there)

I see at least 4 options out of our weave:

1. player handing the ball off, sets a screen on the ball receivers man, who turns the corner and drives
2. the post player flashes in front of his defender and the ball handler looks to hit him with the pass
3. player handing the ball off, sets a screen on the ball receivers man, who uses the screen to shoot
4. the players use the weave to move the defenders to create a seam in the defense for a shot, or a pass to an open wing shooter

the weave is also different if you are playing against a zone or man defense, or a switching man defense. obviously less effective against a zone, but still can be used to get the zone out of it's 'shape' to create seams

weaves can be magically effective as the defenders get kinda lulled into the rhythm of it, so when you change up (like reverse the ball, etc) the defender gets caught off guard. If you've been a defender against a weave, you know what I mean

SFCityBear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

HD - Can you think of a time when we initiated any offense from that weave? To me, all it does it take 10 seconds off the shot clock and is the equivalent of the defense running a 3/4 court press to do the exact same thing.

80% of our offense is exactly as you said, rotating around the perimeter until someone drives for either a (usually) contested shot in the paint or a kick out which has occasionally been successful for us. The only set I'm seeing, which I thought was pretty effective actually, was the 2 man game with Austin and Vanover initiated with the ball screen. Beyond that, the offense is as basic as an offense can possibly get. Maybe there's good reason for that with a young team, but I don't yet see how it's effective for us.

Just watched the Gonzaga/Duke offenses and I felt like I was watching a totally different sport. The amount of off-ball movement, screening, etc is probably 5x what we do. We're obviously not at a point where we can try to exploit match-ups but i'm definitely a little concerned that we can find enough good looks and high percentage shots in rhythm with what we're doing now

---

I agree that the weave we are using is not very effective. Maybe they are just using it tire out the defenders, because it sure isn't producing many buckets. This is not the Indiana weave or the box weave, as far as I can tell. It is definitely not the Pete Newell weave which was a 5-man weave. It isn't the the Mike Montgomery weave. It is just simple dribble and handoffs among the guards and the wing. As South Bender pointed out, the weave we are using does not involve the bigs, so it is a 3-man weave. Newell's weave was a screen-handoff weave, where the dribbler hands off the ball to a teammate, and also at the same exact time, he sets a screen on the teammate's defender. The beauty of it is that the dribbler can't be called for setting a moving screen, You run this with all 5 players for a while, and pretty soon someone will be wide open for a layup or short jumper. I can't remember how it works, it just does. I watched Newell's teams run it for years, and I'd swear it was successful 70-80% of the time. Cal did not run it on every play, just when they really needed a basket to put a nail in the coffin. Or so it seemed.

---

I believe it is a 4-man weave, as we haven't been playing more than one big at a time. (Sueing is usually at what passes for the 4 and Jacobi Gordon comes in for him. Sometimes they play together.)

Yes, though, just based on our games in Brooklyn, Bradley could have played less minutes, with Vanover or Gordon playing more. And what of Anticevich?

SFCityBear said:

---

I agree completely with South Bender.

I also think that Vanover needs more minutes. If the coaches feel strength and stamina are issues, I'd say they are being over protective. He's only playing 10 minutes. There are usually 2-3 time outs for something in 10 minutes, so players get a breather then. I just don't see how we can keep him off the floor. We are getting out-rebounded in every game, and these are not tall teams doing it to us. Kelly is our best or 2nd best rebounder, and he got only 2 rebounds against St.Johns. Having Vanover in the game will create problems for a defense. He gets shoved around, and may not get rebounds himself, but on the offensive end, teams will have to guard him inside or outside, because he is a threat to score, and that may make it easier for Kelly to rebound. Defensively, he changes the game when he is in the game, because of his ability to block or alter shots. I also like his hands, which are soft, and he can catch balls and hold onto them better, unlike Rooks and Okoroh before him.

---

There is a reason Vanover stands under the opposite basket during free-throws.

I've been amazed that guys have been able to scoop shots up and around Vanover for buckets. Those shots always look so incredibly difficult. And I realize he's thin.

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

HD - Can you think of a time when we initiated any offense from that weave? To me, all it does it take 10 seconds off the shot clock and is the equivalent of the defense running a 3/4 court press to do the exact same thing.

80% of our offense is exactly as you said, rotating around the perimeter until someone drives for either a (usually) contested shot in the paint or a kick out which has occasionally been successful for us. The only set I'm seeing, which I thought was pretty effective actually, was the 2 man game with Austin and Vanover initiated with the ball screen. Beyond that, the offense is as basic as an offense can possibly get. Maybe there's good reason for that with a young team, but I don't yet see how it's effective for us.

Just watched the Gonzaga/Duke offenses and I felt like I was watching a totally different sport. The amount of off-ball movement, screening, etc is probably 5x what we do. We're obviously not at a point where we can try to exploit match-ups but i'm definitely a little concerned that we can find enough good looks and high percentage shots in rhythm with what we're doing now

---

I agree that the weave we are using is not very effective. Maybe they are just using it tire out the defenders, because it sure isn't producing many buckets. This is not the Indiana weave or the box weave, as far as I can tell. It is definitely not the Pete Newell weave which was a 5-man weave. It isn't the the Mike Montgomery weave. It is just simple dribble and handoffs among the guards and the wing. As South Bender pointed out, the weave we are using does not involve the bigs, so it is a 3-man weave. Newell's weave was a screen-handoff weave, where the dribbler hands off the ball to a teammate, and also at the same exact time, he sets a screen on the teammate's defender. The beauty of it is that the dribbler can't be called for setting a moving screen, You run this with all 5 players for a while, and pretty soon someone will be wide open for a layup or short jumper. I can't remember how it works, it just does. I watched Newell's teams run it for years, and I'd swear it was successful 70-80% of the time. Cal did not run it on every play, just when they really needed a basket to put a nail in the coffin. Or so it seemed.

---

I believe it is a 4-man weave, as we haven't been playing more than one big at a time. (Sueing is usually at what passes for the 4 and Jacobi Gordon comes in for him. Sometimes they play together.)

Yes, though, just based on our games in Brooklyn, Bradley could have played less minutes, with Vanover or Gordon playing more. And what of Anticevich?

---

3 men running the weave action. Center sometimes clear out the post for a driver, or sets a high screen, or flashes for a pass). 5th man is on the wing for a catch and shoot

Thanks by reminding me, CB, to express my amazement/disagreement with Wyking's leaving no one to contest missed free throws when a Bear is taking a foul shot.

We need our bigs in the second slot on each side of the lane, on the far from negligible chance that we miss a free throw.

Why simply accept that the other team will get the ball on a miss?

If I recall correctly, Monty never did this.

Where is the evidence that when we shoot free throws that having our bigs in rebounding position will hurt us?

For sure it almost certainly eliminates our chances of regaining possession on a missed free throw that is in play. And we are known to miss at the line some of the time.

Having Vanover back on defense is the right call. You might recall that was common with King and Rooks too.

If they are on the line, they certainly have a chance for a rebound, but in most situations the defense gets the rebound and then there is the potential of a fast break.

A player like Vanover and King are better to be back so they don't have to sprint back (and even if they did they won't be trailing the break)

Pros: Conserve energy, be ready on defense, avoid trailing a break
Cons: lose small chance of an offensive rebound

Now this is situational. I haven't checked back, but in most times this year and last, we had two players in the key for rebounds off of missed FTs, and we will always do that if we absolutely need to get the rebound

We always should want to get the rebound.

We have different notions of the risks. I don't see having either big at rebounding positions as a substantial risk.

south bender said:

---

We always should want to get the rebound.

We have different notions of the risks. I don't see having either big at rebounding positions as a substantial risk.

---

I agree. I can't think of a single instance I've seen a team convert a fast break after a free throw.

Civil Bear said:

---

south bender said:

---

We always should want to get the rebound.

We have different notions of the risks. I don't see having either big at rebounding positions as a substantial risk.

---

I agree. I can't think of a single instance I've seen a team convert a fast break after a free throw.

---

a fast break does not have to end in a layup at the hoop

a fast break main is to get the offensive players the ball into scoring position before the defense is set

and again, why make your big, slow guys expend the extra energy running down court

we heard from an insider that Vanover would get tired quickly, and the coaches wanted to preserve his legs/feet. they probably think he has limited 'milage' on his legs/feet and want to preserve them as much as possible. Also, how many times do you see offensive rebounds off of missed FTs anyway? First the player has to miss the FT to even get a chance at a rebound

I can see better reasons to complain about not having any players in the key for FT. My guess is the player at the line was a high FT percent shooter, and with the tighter rotation, the coaches just wanted to conserve the players' energy. Most of our starters are playing major minutes (Paris 34, Sueing 33, McNeil 35, Kelly 29)

The big negative IMHO is the chance of getting called for an over-the -back rebounding foul....Especially with Vanover's height, refs could call a cheapie or two on him very easily which could reduce his aggression on the defensive end....Cheap fouls when you are automatically placed in position of weakness is a real possibility....

Also a good point. As Fraschella pointed out (one of his few intelligent comments), guys that tall often get called unfairly for defensive fouls because it may look like they're fouling when they're not.

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

south bender said:

---

We always should want to get the rebound.

We have different notions of the risks. I don't see having either big at rebounding positions as a substantial risk.

---

I agree. I can't think of a single instance I've seen a team convert a fast break after a free throw.

---

a fast break does not have to end in a layup at the hoop

a fast break main is to get the offensive players the ball into scoring position before the defense is set

and again, why make your big, slow guys expend the extra energy running down court

we heard from an insider that Vanover would get tired quickly, and the coaches wanted to preserve his legs/feet. they probably think he has limited 'milage' on his legs/feet and want to preserve them as much as possible. Also, how many times do you see offensive rebounds off of missed FTs anyway? First the player has to miss the FT to even get a chance at a rebound

I can see better reasons to complain about not having any players in the key for FT. My guess is the player at the line was a high FT percent shooter, and with the tighter rotation, the coaches just wanted to conserve the players' energy. Most of our starters are playing major minutes (Paris 34, Sueing 33, McNeil 35, Kelly 29)

---

The info regarding Vanover was published on the Insider board. I get why they are placing him under the opposite basket during free-throws. That doesn't, however, explain why the Bears are not placing anybody else at the line when Vanover is in the game. Perhaps with him being the only big, Jones is just willing to concede the potential rebound. I hope not, as the odds must be at least 100x greater to get an offensive rebound and score than give up points off a fast break, especially with your big already set downcourt. Perhaps the other decent rebounders were in foul trouble?

There are situational instances where coaches will pull everyone back, like near the end of a half when there isn't enough time to advance the ball upcourt, or with a lead near the end of the game where you don't want to risk the other team scoring without running any time off the clock by way of an offensive rebounding foul. But pulling everyone back mid-half is almost unheard of, particularly when playing from behind.

interesting this is such a controversy
i think it's more common than some may realize
see my other speculation that this may just be about conserving energy for our short rotation players

I've seen this done situationally over many years, with many coaches, and not just Cal

have we done this more than once or twice a game?

Not sure, but I don't recall Monty's ever doing it...