What's this? Could the Bears be improving?

SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, I dunno.

Last 6 games: Bears give up only 76 points per game
In the previous 8 games: Bears give up 86 points per game.

In the last 6 games: Bear defense caused 15 turnovers per game
In the previous 8 games: Bear defense caused only 11 turnovers per game

Last 6 games: Bears averaged 11 assists per game
Previous 8 games: Bears averaged only 7 assists per game

Last 6 games: Bears averaged 9 turnovers per game
Previous 8 games: Bears averaged 12 turnovers per game

For the season, the Bears have a negative assist to turnover ratio.
In the last 5 games, the Bears have had an assist to turnover ratio of +1.4

This could not have happened, because of course, Wyking Jones can't coach.

Then there is Conor Vanover over the last few games. Can anyone deny his improvement? But of course, Wyking Jones can't coach.

Cal is still a bunch of youngsters and no experienced big man, playing with a junior point guard, Every game, Cal goes up against older more experienced players and most of the time against bigger men in the post. There has been some improvement.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They are improving. These guys are good players individually. We have a roster imbalance.

But you still can't be 0-19 (the 19th being the Pac-12 tourney) and keep your job as a coach. And a better coach may accelerate the improvement this off-season and next season. There are pieces. And some good recruits coming too.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting stats, SFCity. There is no question that there is been improvement, where there is debate is around whether it should have been greater.

One interesting set of stats has to do with turnovers. You are right to note the decrease in turnovers (and increase in assist:turnover). It turns out that Cal leads the P12 in fewest turnovers (there's a surprise!). However, it has been pointed out (by Steve Kerr among others) that you can focus too much on avoiding turnovers and therefore not passing the ball aggressively enough to create good scoring opportunities. The Warriors often have more turnovers than their opponents, but almost always many more assists. Not saying that I think we should be sloppy with the ball, but that we shouldn't be too conservative either.
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For anyone interested in a lot of statistical metrics displayed on graphs like 5 game averages, moving averages, etc on a wide variety of stats from offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, eFG%, pace and a couple dozen others, this is the place to go. As you can see, the rolling 5 game offensive efficiency numbers have improved of late and is trending nicely upwards. Still a ways to go but it's progress.

http://www.barttorvik.com/team.php?team=California
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, regardless of coaching, the players and teamwork should improve over time (at least with most reasonable situations). The issue with this staff is not only the trajectory, but the rate of improvement. When you're at the bottom, you can only go up. But how far you go and how quickly you ascend is just as important.

For those looking for improvement, it is there. And the last few games have been more enjoyable to watch. But it seems like much too little and much too late, IMHO. I've seen new coaches and young coaches and coaches with different styles and different levels of talent. I've never seen it this bad at the P12 level.

But no matter how you look at it, this staff is just not doing it. I said it earlier - I need to see something over the last 10 games. I'm not seeing enough.

Patience is warranted, but pretty much all the evidence demonstrates that this experiment has surpassed the patience test.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear Beached: The "evidence" suggests that Cal is
lacking depth
lacks a reliable inside presence
lacks a true PG
does not have enough perimeter shooters



"Evidence" also suggests that if you solve the four variables listed above, thge "coaching " miraculously improves. Next year, variables #1 and #4 will be solved. Variables #2 and #3 will be improved slightly. Next year, cal will be significantly improved. I suggest holding onto your season tickets. Two years from now, Cal will be even better than next year. ( I'm assuming everyone, including the coaches, stay.) My deceased parakeet understands this. Cannot speak for any other species alive or otherwise.
calgo430
How long do you want to ignore this user?
my opinion improvement noted. with thorpe and smith we will beat someone. will hold on to my tickets.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So Hell ,do you still think Jones should get a third chance? Or us it two strikes and your out?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just don't sit our top players when they get in foul trouble for that amount of time that lets the game get out of reach. Take chances. Better to lose a game with top players fouling out than top players sitting. The improvement arc will stall this week if we don't get 1 win or at least come within a whisker of a W. Go Bears! The last 3 games Vanover has gone for PPG of 15, 12 and 15.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

Interesting stats, SFCity. There is no question that there is been improvement, where there is debate is around whether it should have been greater.

One interesting set of stats has to do with turnovers. You are right to note the decrease in turnovers (and increase in assist:turnover). It turns out that Cal leads the P12 in fewest turnovers (there's a surprise!). However, it has been pointed out (by Steve Kerr among others) that you can focus too much on avoiding turnovers and therefore not passing the ball aggressively enough to create good scoring opportunities. The Warriors often have more turnovers than their opponents, but almost always many more assists. Not saying that I think we should be sloppy with the ball, but that we shouldn't be too conservative either.
Be careful here or Yogi will be calling you "wishy-washy"

I agree with you for the Warriors, who are a team of seasoned and phenomenal professionals, whose biggest problem might be the long exhausting NBA schedule, which leads to a loss of focus and maybe even boredom. They need to be coached to play at a certain speed and rhythm. Cal is very young and some of the players are not ready for D! yet, let alone be able to play like the great pros do. Last year, I felt it was totally the wrong move to take players, except for KO and Lee, who don't know how to play defense in college and tell them to play a full court press most of the time. All it did was expose their weaknesses, inability to stay with a man.

I fear that the same thing will take place if Jones tries to get the Bears to attempt more passes, which will include riskier passes and and more turnovers. Better that they learn how to move without the ball, and get open better, so the passes won't be so risky. Jones has a problem in that all his perimeter players are good scorers, and they need the ball in their hands to score. They are one on one players who like to dribble. They do not move to get open. They are not good passers. Throwing that bounce pass to 7-3 Vanover (who made a super athletic play to save the ball and pass it to a teammate) was a bad idea. I would rather they all learn to become good passers first, make the easy passes, and when they get good at it, then try the riskier passes. These guys need to put in a ton of hours in passing drills.

805bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You nailed it. We need to develop our passing fundamentals. The key thing about effective passing is hitting the open man at precisely the optimall moment he is the most open. We dribble and shake and bake and miss that precise moment to pass. By the time we pass the defender has closed ground not allowing us to quickly catch, pass, or catch and shoot. If you must dribble keep your head up looking to pass first. Our over all improvement over the last five games is very encouraging.
bluehenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How about the statistic where the Bears score more points than the other team?

That doesn't seem different over the last, um, how many games?
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

Dear Beached: The "evidence" suggests that Cal is
lacking depth
lacks a reliable inside presence
lacks a true PG
does not have enough perimeter shooters



"Evidence" also suggests that if you solve the four variables listed above, thge "coaching " miraculously improves. Next year, variables #1 and #4 will be solved. Variables #2 and #3 will be improved slightly. Next year, cal will be significantly improved. I suggest holding onto your season tickets. Two years from now, Cal will be even better than next year. ( I'm assuming everyone, including the coaches, stay.) My deceased parakeet understands this. Cannot speak for any other species alive or otherwise.
I'm still on the fence about renewal. If I lived full time in the bay area and I could get any of my friends to join me at games, it is a slam dunk. However, I'm usually flying down for weekends and most of my friends are too fed up to join me at Cal games (the Wed/Sun games also make long weekends tougher to work). But I can separate my personal renewal decision from an objective evaluation of our coaching staff.

Here is a bit more evidence:

The rate of development of players is too slow.
The number of fundamental mistakes is too high.
The number of in game adjustments is too few.
The effectiveness of adjustments is poor.
Recruiting challenges seem too big a hurdle for this staff.
Support for this program is pretty low and waning further.
Players only have four seasons to develop (at best).

All of those, to some extent, are coaching flaws. Wyking taking this team to a 'competitive level' in two years is the best upside I've heard anyone mention. And that is the peak - and based primarily on hope and a little improvement over the last 6 gamesthat most programs show prior to conference play.

Look, Jones and this team appear to be improving. But it is very slight and waaaay too slow compared to about 350 other programs. I like that you support him. I support him at the games. He is our coach. But I can also be critical. My kids love me. I support them. But when they screw up, I let them know and expect improvement comparable to their peers. Jones is simply not measuring up to his peers.
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
These have all been interesting posts, pro and con.

At the very least, if Jones is still with us next season at least we will be able to draw some definitive conclusions. I think I would prefer to give him a third year just to find out. If it ends up being a bad move, it probably makes little difference in the long run.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm doing much better these days with my weight loss diet: two years ago I gained 20 lbs, last year I gained 15 lbs, this year I only gained 1 lb in January. Isn't improvement great. I deserve a donut.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Be careful here or Yogi will be calling you "wishy-washy"

I agree with you for the Warriors, who are a team of seasoned and phenomenal professionals, whose biggest problem might be the long exhausting NBA schedule, which leads to a loss of focus and maybe even boredom. They need to be coached to play at a certain speed and rhythm. Cal is very young and some of the players are not ready for D! yet, let alone be able to play like the great pros do. Last year, I felt it was totally the wrong move to take players, except for KO and Lee, who don't know how to play defense in college and tell them to play a full court press most of the time. All it did was expose their weaknesses, inability to stay with a man.

I fear that the same thing will take place if Jones tries to get the Bears to attempt more passes, which will include riskier passes and and more turnovers. Better that they learn how to move without the ball, and get open better, so the passes won't be so risky. Jones has a problem in that all his perimeter players are good scorers, and they need the ball in their hands to score. They are one on one players who like to dribble. They do not move to get open. They are not good passers. Throwing that bounce pass to 7-3 Vanover (who made a super athletic play to save the ball and pass it to a teammate) was a bad idea. I would rather they all learn to become good passers first, make the easy passes, and when they get good at it, then try the riskier passes. These guys need to put in a ton of hours in passing drills.


I don't disagree with any of this, SFCity. My only problem is when careful and easy becomes stagnant. That was the criticism of Ben Braun's offense at times, easy, safe passes around the perimeter with little movement and no attempt at getting the ball inside. I fully agree, however, that the key is movement without the ball, something that appears not to be stressed enough.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

These have all been interesting posts, pro and con.

At the very least, if Jones is still with us next season at least we will be able to draw some definitive conclusions.

That's what many people said this time last year.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

helltopay1 said:

Dear Beached: The "evidence" suggests that Cal is
lacking depth
lacks a reliable inside presence
lacks a true PG
does not have enough perimeter shooters



"Evidence" also suggests that if you solve the four variables listed above, thge "coaching " miraculously improves. Next year, variables #1 and #4 will be solved. Variables #2 and #3 will be improved slightly. Next year, cal will be significantly improved. I suggest holding onto your season tickets. Two years from now, Cal will be even better than next year. ( I'm assuming everyone, including the coaches, stay.) My deceased parakeet understands this. Cannot speak for any other species alive or otherwise.
I'm still on the fence about renewal. If I lived full time in the bay area and I could get any of my friends to join me at games, it is a slam dunk. However, I'm usually flying down for weekends and most of my friends are too fed up to join me at Cal games (the Wed/Sun games also make long weekends tougher to work). But I can separate my personal renewal decision from an objective evaluation of our coaching staff.

Here is a bit more evidence:

The rate of development of players is too slow.
The number of fundamental mistakes is too high.
The number of in game adjustments is too few.
The effectiveness of adjustments is poor.
Recruiting challenges seem too big a hurdle for this staff.
Support for this program is pretty low and waning further.
Players only have four seasons to develop (at best).

All of those, to some extent, are coaching flaws. Wyking taking this team to a 'competitive level' in two years is the best upside I've heard anyone mention. And that is the peak - and based primarily on hope and a little improvement over the last 6 gamesthat most programs show prior to conference play.

Look, Jones and this team appear to be improving. But it is very slight and waaaay too slow compared to about 350 other programs. I like that you support him. I support him at the games. He is our coach. But I can also be critical. My kids love me. I support them. But when they screw up, I let them know and expect improvement comparable to their peers. Jones is simply not measuring up to his peers.
You make good points, but how many coaches have almost literally no upperclassmen on their team? Along with having no big men (jury is out on whether Vanover's recent flashes of improvement are real going forward)?. Have you followed any other D1 coaches this year with so young, raw, and inexperienced talent? In my experience as a fan, the gap in being able to play well at this level between the average freshman and the average junior seems to be huge, and the gap between the average soph and the average senior is equally huge. Cal's opponents almost always present Cal with a three or more players 6-9 to 7-0 to deal with, which even in the era of more long rebounds is unsurmountable. You can go out there and compete with 6-6 guys if they are Wes Unseld or Paul Silas. I don't disagree with anything you say, but I think you are laying a little too much on the coach. He is not doing enough, and he's made some poor decisions, but he can only do so much with what he has to work with. This is by far the youngest team I have ever seen at Cal in over 60 years of watching Cal play basketball.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If we look at the won loss record, we have gotten worse this year than last. Although this should not be the only indicator of improvement, it is the bottom line and a statistic that is hard over come when instead of losing by 20 you have one close loss and others by almost double digits.

I would be curious what part of Wykings coaching you are impressed enough with that would cause you to call for a third year, knowing an extension could cause more damage to the program, loss of players , loss of hard core fans who might not come back and a much longer recovery period .

Tell me why you are willing to run this risk when a new coach could energize the program and the fan base.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

RedlessWardrobe said:

These have all been interesting posts, pro and con.

At the very least, if Jones is still with us next season at least we will be able to draw some definitive conclusions.

That's what many people said this time last year.
And every year of the Holmoe regime and every year of the Dykes regime.

Keep this phrase in mind. "balance of the probabilities". You don't make a move when there is a definitive conclusion. You make a move when doing so is more likely to improve your program than not. There is simply no way that any sane person can conclude we are more likely to succeed by staying the course. If we don't make a move it is plain and simple. We don't have the money and we are content to take our losses and cash the check from the Pac-12. Any of you that like to watch the Washington Generals play can have at it. If we aren't going to try, I'm not going to watch.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

BeachedBear said:

helltopay1 said:

Dear Beached: The "evidence" suggests that Cal is
lacking depth
lacks a reliable inside presence
lacks a true PG
does not have enough perimeter shooters



"Evidence" also suggests that if you solve the four variables listed above, thge "coaching " miraculously improves. Next year, variables #1 and #4 will be solved. Variables #2 and #3 will be improved slightly. Next year, cal will be significantly improved. I suggest holding onto your season tickets. Two years from now, Cal will be even better than next year. ( I'm assuming everyone, including the coaches, stay.) My deceased parakeet understands this. Cannot speak for any other species alive or otherwise.
I'm still on the fence about renewal. If I lived full time in the bay area and I could get any of my friends to join me at games, it is a slam dunk. However, I'm usually flying down for weekends and most of my friends are too fed up to join me at Cal games (the Wed/Sun games also make long weekends tougher to work). But I can separate my personal renewal decision from an objective evaluation of our coaching staff.

Here is a bit more evidence:

The rate of development of players is too slow.
The number of fundamental mistakes is too high.
The number of in game adjustments is too few.
The effectiveness of adjustments is poor.
Recruiting challenges seem too big a hurdle for this staff.
Support for this program is pretty low and waning further.
Players only have four seasons to develop (at best).

All of those, to some extent, are coaching flaws. Wyking taking this team to a 'competitive level' in two years is the best upside I've heard anyone mention. And that is the peak - and based primarily on hope and a little improvement over the last 6 gamesthat most programs show prior to conference play.

Look, Jones and this team appear to be improving. But it is very slight and waaaay too slow compared to about 350 other programs. I like that you support him. I support him at the games. He is our coach. But I can also be critical. My kids love me. I support them. But when they screw up, I let them know and expect improvement comparable to their peers. Jones is simply not measuring up to his peers.
You make good points, but how many coaches have almost literally no upperclassmen on their team? Along with having no big men (jury is out on whether Vanover's recent flashes of improvement are real going forward)?. Have you followed any other D1 coaches this year with so young, raw, and inexperienced talent? In my experience as a fan, the gap in being able to play well at this level between the average freshman and the average junior seems to be huge, and the gap between the average soph and the average senior is equally huge. Cal's opponents almost always present Cal with a three or more players 6-9 to 7-0 to deal with, which even in the era of more long rebounds is unsurmountable. You can go out there and compete with 6-6 guys if they are Wes Unseld or Paul Silas. I don't disagree with anything you say, but I think you are laying a little too much on the coach. He is not doing enough, and he's made some poor decisions, but he can only do so much with what he has to work with. This is by far the youngest team I have ever seen at Cal in over 60 years of watching Cal play basketball.
SFCity, you have made some good points in Jones favor through the season, but lately you have been overreaching. Yes, experience and size matter, but they aren't the only things that matter. You used this argument to argue that the Seattle loss was understandable. It wasn't. Seattle is 1-7 in a terrible conference. Their win is against a team that sucks every year even at their level and that is winless in conference. In conference, Seattle is 0-7 against New Mexico State, The Grand Canyon Antelopes, The Utah Valley State Wolverines, Cal State Bakersfield Roadrunners, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros, the California Baptist Lancers, and the UMKC Kangaroos.

No Pac-12 team should lose to that team. It cannot be excused. They suck. Their players suck. They have no business on the same floor with Pac-12 players. Yes they have a more experienced, bigger and vastly less talented roster.

I do not think Jones has a roster that allows for success this season. That doesn't mean he has a roster that excuses crash and burn failure. At some point having a better shooting percentage but worse win loss percentage than the previous worst team in decades is not enough improvement.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

SFCity, you have made some good points in Jones favor through the season, but lately you have been overreaching. Yes, experience and size matter, but they aren't the only things that matter. You used this argument to argue that the Seattle loss was understandable. It wasn't.
How do you think our somewhat improved team would do if we played Seattle again tomorrow?
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Loss size and coaching same.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

OaktownBear said:

SFCity, you have made some good points in Jones favor through the season, but lately you have been overreaching. Yes, experience and size matter, but they aren't the only things that matter. You used this argument to argue that the Seattle loss was understandable. It wasn't.
How do you think our somewhat improved team would do if we played Seattle again tomorrow?
I haven't seen Seattle play lately. Maybe they are an improved horrible team as well. We can speculate about that and judge the coach by fantasy games or we can judge by actual results.

But tell you what. To anyone who would argue we would beat them, I give. Cal plays Seattle tomorrow and wins by a million points. And that changes the other 17 losses how? And that changes the fact that our team that has improved has lost 12 straight how? I've fixed one game with the waive of a speculative want. Good luck coming up with an argument for the other 17.

And beating Seattle isn't the standard we aspire to.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

BeachedBear said:

helltopay1 said:

Dear Beached: The "evidence" suggests that Cal is
lacking depth
lacks a reliable inside presence
lacks a true PG
does not have enough perimeter shooters



"Evidence" also suggests that if you solve the four variables listed above, thge "coaching " miraculously improves. Next year, variables #1 and #4 will be solved. Variables #2 and #3 will be improved slightly. Next year, cal will be significantly improved. I suggest holding onto your season tickets. Two years from now, Cal will be even better than next year. ( I'm assuming everyone, including the coaches, stay.) My deceased parakeet understands this. Cannot speak for any other species alive or otherwise.
I'm still on the fence about renewal. If I lived full time in the bay area and I could get any of my friends to join me at games, it is a slam dunk. However, I'm usually flying down for weekends and most of my friends are too fed up to join me at Cal games (the Wed/Sun games also make long weekends tougher to work). But I can separate my personal renewal decision from an objective evaluation of our coaching staff.

Here is a bit more evidence:

The rate of development of players is too slow.
The number of fundamental mistakes is too high.
The number of in game adjustments is too few.
The effectiveness of adjustments is poor.
Recruiting challenges seem too big a hurdle for this staff.
Support for this program is pretty low and waning further.
Players only have four seasons to develop (at best).

All of those, to some extent, are coaching flaws. Wyking taking this team to a 'competitive level' in two years is the best upside I've heard anyone mention. And that is the peak - and based primarily on hope and a little improvement over the last 6 gamesthat most programs show prior to conference play.

Look, Jones and this team appear to be improving. But it is very slight and waaaay too slow compared to about 350 other programs. I like that you support him. I support him at the games. He is our coach. But I can also be critical. My kids love me. I support them. But when they screw up, I let them know and expect improvement comparable to their peers. Jones is simply not measuring up to his peers.
You make good points, but how many coaches have almost literally no upperclassmen on their team? Along with having no big men (jury is out on whether Vanover's recent flashes of improvement are real going forward)?. Have you followed any other D1 coaches this year with so young, raw, and inexperienced talent? In my experience as a fan, the gap in being able to play well at this level between the average freshman and the average junior seems to be huge, and the gap between the average soph and the average senior is equally huge. Cal's opponents almost always present Cal with a three or more players 6-9 to 7-0 to deal with, which even in the era of more long rebounds is unsurmountable. You can go out there and compete with 6-6 guys if they are Wes Unseld or Paul Silas. I don't disagree with anything you say, but I think you are laying a little too much on the coach. He is not doing enough, and he's made some poor decisions, but he can only do so much with what he has to work with. This is by far the youngest team I have ever seen at Cal in over 60 years of watching Cal play basketball.
I actually think we are in agreement. My intention is not to lay too much on the coach, but there are clearly coaching deficiencies and there is little evidence to suggest that Jones is superior to other possible candidates. I obviously don't follow other programs as much as Cal, but I have seen enough of similar situations (young and small) to see better coached teams.

Wyking Jones may be a pretty good coach in the future, but I'm confident that future is more than 5 years away. The majority of average to good coaches learned and worked their up with fewer challenges.

I just don't see Jones becoming a good coach for Cal in the next few years. I may be wrong - and if I am, I will step up. But none of the Jones defenders (or give him more timers) have convinced me otherwise (yet).

If Jones is here next year - it will be because of an unfriendly contract or the inability to attract superior candidates. It won't be because of performance - and that is sad.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

SFCityBear said:

BeachedBear said:

helltopay1 said:

Dear Beached: The "evidence" suggests that Cal is
lacking depth
lacks a reliable inside presence
lacks a true PG
does not have enough perimeter shooters



"Evidence" also suggests that if you solve the four variables listed above, thge "coaching " miraculously improves. Next year, variables #1 and #4 will be solved. Variables #2 and #3 will be improved slightly. Next year, cal will be significantly improved. I suggest holding onto your season tickets. Two years from now, Cal will be even better than next year. ( I'm assuming everyone, including the coaches, stay.) My deceased parakeet understands this. Cannot speak for any other species alive or otherwise.
I'm still on the fence about renewal. If I lived full time in the bay area and I could get any of my friends to join me at games, it is a slam dunk. However, I'm usually flying down for weekends and most of my friends are too fed up to join me at Cal games (the Wed/Sun games also make long weekends tougher to work). But I can separate my personal renewal decision from an objective evaluation of our coaching staff.

Here is a bit more evidence:

The rate of development of players is too slow.
The number of fundamental mistakes is too high.
The number of in game adjustments is too few.
The effectiveness of adjustments is poor.
Recruiting challenges seem too big a hurdle for this staff.
Support for this program is pretty low and waning further.
Players only have four seasons to develop (at best).

All of those, to some extent, are coaching flaws. Wyking taking this team to a 'competitive level' in two years is the best upside I've heard anyone mention. And that is the peak - and based primarily on hope and a little improvement over the last 6 gamesthat most programs show prior to conference play.

Look, Jones and this team appear to be improving. But it is very slight and waaaay too slow compared to about 350 other programs. I like that you support him. I support him at the games. He is our coach. But I can also be critical. My kids love me. I support them. But when they screw up, I let them know and expect improvement comparable to their peers. Jones is simply not measuring up to his peers.
You make good points, but how many coaches have almost literally no upperclassmen on their team? Along with having no big men (jury is out on whether Vanover's recent flashes of improvement are real going forward)?. Have you followed any other D1 coaches this year with so young, raw, and inexperienced talent? In my experience as a fan, the gap in being able to play well at this level between the average freshman and the average junior seems to be huge, and the gap between the average soph and the average senior is equally huge. Cal's opponents almost always present Cal with a three or more players 6-9 to 7-0 to deal with, which even in the era of more long rebounds is unsurmountable. You can go out there and compete with 6-6 guys if they are Wes Unseld or Paul Silas. I don't disagree with anything you say, but I think you are laying a little too much on the coach. He is not doing enough, and he's made some poor decisions, but he can only do so much with what he has to work with. This is by far the youngest team I have ever seen at Cal in over 60 years of watching Cal play basketball.
SFCity, you have made some good points in Jones favor through the season, but lately you have been overreaching. Yes, experience and size matter, but they aren't the only things that matter. Seattle You used this argument to argue that the Seattle loss was understandable. It wasn't. is 1-7 in a terrible conference. Their win is against a team that sucks every year even at their level and that is winless in conference. In conference, Seattle is 0-7 against New Mexico State, The Grand Canyon Antelopes, The Utah Valley State Wolverines, Cal State Bakersfield Roadrunners, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros, the California Baptist Lancers, and the UMKC Kangaroos.
Quote:


No Pac-12 team should lose to that team. It cannot be excused. They suck. Their players suck. They have no business on the same floor with Pac-12 players. Yes they have a more experienced, bigger and vastly less talented roster.

I do not think Jones has a roster that allows for success this season. That doesn't mean he has a roster that excuses crash and burn failure. At some point having a better shooting percentage but worse win loss percentage than the previous worst team in decades is not enough improvement.
I think all of us often look only at the wins and the losses and form our opinions based on that. If we look at the actual games, the actual box scores, and the team's statistics, we can learn a little more of what happened. Did you do that? If you had done that, you would have seen that Seattle has played nearly all of its conference season without two starters. They are basically a 6 man rotation, and they were down to four for most of the conference games.

Seattle beat Washington State earlier in the season, when Seattle players were healthy. I know WSU is not a good team, but WSU is a PAC12 team, and they just knocked off traditional PAC12 powerhouse Arizona in Tucson. You accuse me of overreaching, but you are wildly exaggerating about the quality of the Seattle team, because you are not taking into account the injuries they've had. You've followed basketball enough to know an injury or two can ruin a team's season (Remember Bird and Wallace down with injury in the NCAA, and even though Cal had Brown and Rabb, they were badly beaten by an inferior Hawaii team) Many of us excuse that Cal loss, and I think the Seattle situation is similar, except that it is lasting for more games for Seattle.

I warned early in the season that we needed to look out for Seattle after they beat WSU. They also lost to Washington by only 8 points, and it looks like UW may be the best team in the PAC 12. Seattle was 11-3 before playing Cal, and there were perhaps one or two PAC12 teams Seattle might have been able to beat. One key to beating Seattle is how you handle 6-9 Myles Carter. Carter went off on Cal getting 13 rebounds and 26 points. Cal has no big men, no answer for a guy like Carter. UW held him to 15 points and 7 rebounds. UW has experienced big men. Cal does not.

I stand by what I said. Cal's young, less experienced and shorter players have a very hard time playing against bigger more experienced players. Seattle's players are all more experienced than Cal's players, AND THEY HAVE BEEN PLAYING TOGETHER FOR 2-3 YEARS. It was the same when we played USF, who many fans though Cal should have been able to beat. They had bigger more experienced players who have been playing together for 2-3 years, and for USF, those were 20 win seasons, as I remember.

You could still be right that Jones coaching is more responsible for all the losses than the inexperience of the players, and the lack of height, but I'd need to see better examples than Seattle to believe you.
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JFC
graguna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bisonbob
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good point!, In that if you let WJ run thru next year you have a greater risk of sliding deeper down the slippery slope of irrelevancy.I guess there might be the pressure of eating his salary, but unless this upcoming class fills several of the current hole that many have expressed already, Move On now!!
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bears are 2 for 27 in PAC 12 play counting last season. Be patient.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Incoming class all 3 star. Thorpecat 6 8 listed as center. Thin guy.

https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/2019/d-j-thorpe-185078
bearmanpg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Bears are 2 for 27 in PAC 12 play counting last season. Be patient.

A little more patience and we may be in the Big West conference.....at this point, that wouldn't make us a winning program because I don't think you can find a D1 conference that we could be over .500 in....Cuonzo Martin is a much better coach than Jones and he was practically decapitated here in BI.....I can't see where 1 more season is going to do anything more than put you farther in the hole in which you already are a bottom feeder....Time to cut the BS and do something.....Wyking Jones should be unemployed on March 14th......
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another point I would make is that we don't have adequate players on the bench for the starters to scrimmage against. And when you look at a guy like Conor Vanover, who do we have who is capable enough to play against him and make Vanover better? Who would be guarding Vanover in practice? Anticevich? Davis? Kelly? Give me a break. I like Anticevich, but he is more of a project than Vanover is. They are both slow, but Vanover already has more skills and basketball IQ than Anticevich. He knows much of what he needs to do on the court. The biggest thing he needs is strength. He seems to be making improvement, as in the last three games, and if he is, he is doing it by learning from his coaching. Kelly might be able to teach him a little about post moves, but that is all I can think of. The biggest players on this team can not teach him much, so I would say that if he is improving, it is by himself with some good coaching.
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In the quest for perfection, -0- conference wins, it's games like this one that concern me.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Another point I would make is that we don't have adequate players on the bench for the starters to scrimmage against. And when you look at a guy like Conor Vanover, who do we have who is capable enough to play against him and make Vanover better? Who would be guarding Vanover in practice? Anticevich? Davis? Kelly? Give me a break. I like Anticevich, but he is more of a project than Vanover is. They are both slow, but Vanover already has more skills and basketball IQ than Anticevich. He knows much of what he needs to do on the court. The biggest thing he needs is strength. He seems to be making improvement, as in the last three games, and if he is, he is doing it by learning from his coaching. Kelly might be able to teach him a little about post moves, but that is all I can think of. The biggest players on this team can not teach him much, so I would say that if he is improving, it is by himself with some good coaching.
I guess he should have gone to Kentucky.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.