RedlessWardrobe said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

I don't think WJ did out coach Haas. Stanford tried the right things and Cal actually messed up with its "slow down" strategy. The coaching wasn't the problem, the execution was.

---

Probably true, poor execution, just like Cal in most of their losses. Honestly I was being a bit satirical about WJ and Haase. I just find it amusing that in almost every loss that we've had it is somehow attributed to WJ on this board, but when we win his coaching never is.

---

A coach is either good or bad. If good, then all credit goes to the coach and all blame goes to the talent. if bad, then vice versa. That polarizing logic seems to be a sign of the times, right?

The coaching and the execution by the players is improving. Anyone denying that is not seeing past a short sighted agenda. But, when you're at the bottom, the only way to go is up.

Very happy with the wins for all involved!

FWIW, I have not been impressed with Haase at Stanfurd. I thought he would be doing much better. He may be my favorite P12 coach.

bearister said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

---

I've got friends on the Farm who aren't exactly ecstatic with Haase.

---

Eff him as far as I'm concerned. Ever since he ran off to Kansas, I haven't had a good thought about him.

---

In fairness to him maybe he knew Bozeman was a d@uche.

---

Agree 100% about Bozeman. I used to cut Haase some slack... until he showed up at Furd. Now he gets the same treatment from me that any other Furd coach gets. No more, no less. In the early '90s, back in my heckling days, I mentioned something to the great Mike Montgomery, prior to our game with them, and it made him laugh. The next year, not so much, as he took a step towards me, before one of his assistants had to put a hand on his shoulder. And I'm a Mike Montgomery fan!

Civil Bear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Coincidentally, It was also Furd's worst game of the season offensively, driven in large part by their 4-22 performance from 3. If they make 2 more of those (still a bad 28%), they win.

---

I'm no WJ backer by any stretch, but you have to know it doesn't work that way. Had the game been closer with more time on the clock then the Bears don't start milking the clock so soon. Sure the outcome could have been different, but it's not nearly that cut & dry.

---

Of course you're right and I didn't mean to be taken quite so literally with "making two more shots". But that wasn't the point. Yes, we milked the clock which affected our own 2nd half performance which ended up looking very different than the 1st half but my comment was directed at Stanfurd's offense. Was their worst-of-the-season performance because we were the best defense they've played al year? Of course not. There's always gonna be a variance from an established mean whether it's over the course of a stretch of play or a game. As the 350th best defense, for us to hold an opponent down like we did against Furd, it may very well be that we played atypically good defense (which I acknowledged) but it can also obe due to Stanford just not getting open shots to go down that in another game, they make at a higher rate. It happens.

The shots were there, they just didn't make them.

KoreAmBear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Last night was our best performance, by far, on the defensive end, at least statistically speaking. No other game even comes close from an defensive efficiency or defensive eFG% standpoint. Coincidentally, It was also Furd's worst game of the season offensively, driven in large part by their 4-22 performance from 3. If they make 2 more of those (still a bad 28%), they win.

So was that performance all about our defense tightening up finally or Furd just laying an egg? I think the answer is somehere in the middle. I thought the defense looked better and the guys played with good energy (and the blocks by CV helped) but at the same time, a lot of those 3's that Furd missed were good open looks. In the end, it was probably a bit more about Furd being cold than us being hot. But, hey, a win is a win and a streak is a streak.

Kudos to the players for never giving up and to the staff for not letting them.

---

Near the end of the game we gave Furd way too many open 3 ball looks. All season they have over-helped and then rotate way too late to the line. Whatever the case, it's been fun to see the boys get it done. The shortened rotation I think kind of helps if you think about it. Just gets everyone in rhythm and not worried about PT.

---

??? Absolutely incorrect - Coach asked the players during an earlier conference game (same shortened rotation) if they had anything left in the tank and 2 players answered honestly "coach i am gassed". Playing at this level of D-1 ball, requires depth - plain and simple. Its far too difficult too expend top energy at both ends of the court when you are being asked to play 32+ minutes.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

I don't think WJ did out coach Haas. Stanford tried the right things and Cal actually messed up with its "slow down" strategy. The coaching wasn't the problem, the execution was.

---

Probably true, poor execution, just like Cal in most of their losses. Honestly I was being a bit satirical about WJ and Haase. I just find it amusing that in almost every loss that we've had it is somehow attributed to WJ on this board, but when we win his coaching never is.

---

I will give Wyking props. I thought his high screen and pop at the start of the game to COnnor was smart. I think we didn't have much of a next plan once Sharma started to stick with Connor but it worked at the start and that was a lot of Wyking. He also has them playing better zone - largely I think because Connor is getting it and 7.3 is a TALL kid.

one of the things I am constantly stunned by, is some fans thinking that a D1 player can play 40 minutes at the intensity, full out effort and focus needed in a college basketball game.

I've been shocked by being winded after the first 5 minutes of some games. Maybe it's the adenine, but to truly play ALL OUT, takes a huge amount of energy. I've also got so tired that my legs got wobbly and I felt like I was going to fall. Have you ever boxed, or wrestled for a whole SIX minutes? First time I did that in HS I could barely raise my arms to eat an orange.

And it's not just physical fatigue. It's also mental. If you are playing at that intensity level, with the physical and mental stress for that long straight it's really hard to maintain your focus. That leads to mistakes, reverting to bad habits (e.g. bad shooting form), etc.

When you're tired, you also need to adjust your shot because you might shoot short (tired legs). Yet if you try to adjust, you can over compensate and shoot long.

Some say that these are 'young kids', elite athletes, and professionally trained and conditioned. True. So they are not going to be winded after 5 minutes like I was sometimes, but that doesn't mean they can battle for 40 minutes in a college basketball game against elite, equally trained athletes that are better rested.

I sure wasn't expecting this. I'm so very proud of our players and so very pleased for them. We now have some momentum off of which to build.

Oh, yeah... phuc furd!

HoopDreams said:

---

one of the things I am constantly stunned by, is some fans thinking that a D1 player can play 40 minutes at the intensity, full out effort and focus needed in a college basketball game.

I've been shocked by being winded after the first 5 minutes of some games. Maybe it's the adenine, but to truly play ALL OUT, takes a huge amount of energy. I've also got so tired that my legs got wobbly and I felt like I was going to fall. Have you ever boxed, or wrestled for a whole SIX minutes? First time I did that in HS I could barely raise my arms to eat an orange.

And it's not just physical fatigue. It's also mental. If you are playing at that intensity level, with the physical and mental stress for that long straight it's really hard to maintain your focus. That leads to mistakes, reverting to bad habits (e.g. bad shooting form), etc.

When you're tired, you also need to adjust your shot because you might shoot short (tired legs). Yet if you try to adjust, you can over compensate and shoot long.

Some say that these are 'young kids', elite athletes, and professionally trained and conditioned. True. So they are not going to be winded after 5 minutes like I was sometimes, but that doesn't mean they can battle for 40 minutes in a college basketball game against elite, equally trained athletes that are better rested.

---

+1 - excellent points from a past player, which many posters simply don't understand. To have just 8 players who play (and 4 that play 30+ min/game) is an significant disadvantage that has lead to 2nd half break downs. To blame coaches on players being beaten at the defensive end, or not properly finishing offensive plays, ignores the natural fatigue that a short handed team faces.

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

---

I've got friends on the Farm who aren't exactly ecstatic with Haase.

---

Eff him as far as I'm concerned. Ever since he ran off to Kansas, I haven't had a good thought about him.

---

plus he's fat now. Traitor

HoopDreams said:

---

one of the things I am constantly stunned by, is some fans thinking that a D1 player can play 40 minutes at the intensity, full out effort and focus needed in a college basketball game.

I've been shocked by being winded after the first 5 minutes of some games. Maybe it's the adenine, but to truly play ALL OUT, takes a huge amount of energy. I've also got so tired that my legs got wobbly and I felt like I was going to fall. Have you ever boxed, or wrestled for a whole SIX minutes? First time I did that in HS I could barely raise my arms to eat an orange.

And it's not just physical fatigue. It's also mental. If you are playing at that intensity level, with the physical and mental stress for that long straight it's really hard to maintain your focus. That leads to mistakes, reverting to bad habits (e.g. bad shooting form), etc.

When you're tired, you also need to adjust your shot because you might shoot short (tired legs). Yet if you try to adjust, you can over compensate and shoot long.

Some say that these are 'young kids', elite athletes, and professionally trained and conditioned. True. So they are not going to be winded after 5 minutes like I was sometimes, but that doesn't mean they can battle for 40 minutes in a college basketball game against elite, equally trained athletes that are better rested.

---

Many teams, if not most, play only 7-8 men for double digit minutes. How gross minutes are strung together is more important than the raw numbers. Some, Vanover comes to mind, might need more frequent, short rests . To use the gas tank analogy, top 'em up at half/three quarters full rather than when the red light goes on.

59bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

one of the things I am constantly stunned by, is some fans thinking that a D1 player can play 40 minutes at the intensity, full out effort and focus needed in a college basketball game.

I've been shocked by being winded after the first 5 minutes of some games. Maybe it's the adenine, but to truly play ALL OUT, takes a huge amount of energy. I've also got so tired that my legs got wobbly and I felt like I was going to fall. Have you ever boxed, or wrestled for a whole SIX minutes? First time I did that in HS I could barely raise my arms to eat an orange.

And it's not just physical fatigue. It's also mental. If you are playing at that intensity level, with the physical and mental stress for that long straight it's really hard to maintain your focus. That leads to mistakes, reverting to bad habits (e.g. bad shooting form), etc.

When you're tired, you also need to adjust your shot because you might shoot short (tired legs). Yet if you try to adjust, you can over compensate and shoot long.

Some say that these are 'young kids', elite athletes, and professionally trained and conditioned. True. So they are not going to be winded after 5 minutes like I was sometimes, but that doesn't mean they can battle for 40 minutes in a college basketball game against elite, equally trained athletes that are better rested.

---

Many teams, if not most, play only 7-8 men for double digit minutes. How gross minutes are strung together is more important than the raw numbers. Some, Vanover comes to mind, might need more frequent, short rests . To use the gas tank analogy, top 'em up at half/three quarters full rather than when the red light goes on.

---

True, and I'm sure they want to have 9-10 players in their rotation because it's an advantage. I'm not saying other teams don't also have a short bench, but when they do the tv announcer often points it out because it's uncommon and a disadvantage

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

---

I've got friends on the Farm who aren't exactly ecstatic with Haase.

---

You have 'furd friends? :-)

There are certainly a few coaches who would prefer to use a 9-10 man rotation, especially coaches that press a lot like Pitino and Smart. But by and large, most of the successful established coaches prefer a shorter bench. This has long been a topic of conversation at Duke since Coach K prefers a short bench. So, someone did an analysis of a bunch of programs over a 5 year period which showed that the average number of players getting more than 10 mins/game was 8.1. A few coaches like Coach K and John Calipari were at 7.7.

Cal has 8 such players this year and Gordon at 9.6 just misses out on being a 9th. So I really don't think we're playing a shorter bench than anyone else. Wyking, being influenced by Pitino, may prefer a longer bench but there's nothing abnormal, compared to the rest of college basketball about our bench minutes this year.

Just for fun, I looked at how our minutes this year compared to other pac-12 program on players getting more than 300, 400, 500 and 800 minutes and noticed no real differences with our conference brethren.

That said, I do think fatigue can play a factor during a game once you get into the 36-40 range. That seems more of a danger zone than the accumulated fatigue effect over a season. It's true that some of our guys like Sueing and Austin, in particular, are asked to play minutes in that range.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

There are certainly a few coaches who would prefer to use a 9-10 man rotation, especially coaches that press a lot like Pitino and Smart. But by and large, most of the successful established coaches prefer a shorter bench. This has long been a topic of conversation at Duke since Coach K prefers a short bench. So, someone did an analysis of a bunch of programs over a 5 year period which showed that the average number of players getting more than 10 mins/game was 8.1. A few coaches like Coach K and John Calipari were at 7.7.

Cal has 8 such players this year and Gordon at 9.6 just misses out on being a 9th. So I really don't think we're playing a shorter bench than anyone else. Wyking, being influenced by Pitino, may prefer a longer bench but there's nothing abnormal, compared to the rest of college basketball about our bench minutes this year.

Just for fun, I looked at how our minutes this year compared to other pac-12 program on players getting more than 300, 400, 500 and 800 minutes and noticed no real differences with our conference brethren.

That said, I do think fatigue can play a factor during a game once you get into the 36-40 range. That seems more of a danger zone than the accumulated fatigue effect over a season. It's true that some of our guys like Sueing and Austin, in particular, are asked to play minutes in that range.

---

Good stuff. I was referring to recent games when we were down Davis and Gordon.

I think when healthy, we have 8 solid players, and that's enough quality depth. But in your study, those teams did have other players that can play some legit minutes. For example, Gordon played 10 minutes/game, often backing up justice for 3-4 minutes many games. Justice plays 35 per game but played 37 minutes recently. Does an extra 2 minutes matter? I think so when you are talking about 37 vs 35 minutes

7 is too few. That means only 1 guard sub and 1 big sub, and then what happens when there is foul trouble? in the Stanford game I was looking at our walk on roster

i'm Good with our regular 8 man rotation, but it would b

If Haase spent less time eating, and more time coaching, he probably would be a better coach. Tom Osborne said that most coaches have the same playbook. The difference is that the successful coaches, for whatever reason, can motivate their kids, while, for whatever reason, they less successful coaches cannot motivate their kids consistently.

helltopay1 said:

---

If Haase spent less time eating, and more time coaching, he probably would be a better coach. ....

---

Hasse left because he did mot like Bozo plus he was not getting enough playing time. Don't blame him a bit for leaving. Also he like Lou and did not like the firing.

That being said, there was probably tampering by Kansas.

oskidunker said:

---

Hasse left because he did mot like Bozo plus he was not getting enough playing time. Don't blame him a bit for leaving. Also he like Lou and did not like the firing.

That being said, there was probably tampering by Kansas.

---

I seriously doubt it. There is no reason to think Hasse wasn't the one to reach out. He probably should have been starting for Cal, but it wasn't like he was setting the world on fire.

Civil Bear said:

---

He probably should have been starting for Cal, but it wasn't like he was setting the world on fire.

---

Haase was a 3-year starter for Kansas. During those years Kansas was ranked in the Top Ten and had two Sweet Sixteen and one Elite Eight appearances.

stu said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

He probably should have been starting for Cal, but it wasn't like he was setting the world on fire.

---

Haase was a 3-year starter for Kansas. During those years Kansas was ranked in the Top Ten and had two Sweet Sixteen and one Elite Eight appearances.

---

Yup.

Dear Civil: Haase 'did set the world on fire" for opposing teams because his fiery competitive nature often prodded his teammates to replicate his relentless aggressive plays ( usually on defense where he would fearlessly dive on thge floor nose -first to capture loose balls) And, on offense, he was always looking for a no-holds-barred drive to the rack. He was my favorite player while at Cal. Every team needs a Hasse-Like player whether on the floor or on the bench. In addition, his perimeter shooting was just good enough to keep the defenders honest. All credit cards accepted.

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Civil: Haase 'did set the world on fire" for opposing teams because his fiery competitive nature often prodded his teammates to replicate his relentless aggressive plays ( usually on defense where he would fearlessly dive on thge floor nose -first to capture loose balls) And, on offense, he was always looking for a no-holds-barred drive to the rack. He was my favorite player while at Cal. Every team needs a Hasse-Like player whether on the floor or on the bench. In addition, his perimeter shooting was just good enough to keep the defenders honest. All credit cards accepted.

---

precisely why I hated him after he left and gave up on Cal. Love to see us beat up on him as a furdian and pay the price for being a traitor

You liked what Bozeman did? Hasse saw through that guy

I wasn't tied in or connected to the "Peyton Place" aspects of hoops at that time. My emotions were driven simply by the mere fact he quit on Cal. In retrospect maybe there was something deeper. Sounds like it.

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Civil: Haase 'did set the world on fire" for opposing teams because his fiery competitive nature often prodded his teammates to replicate his relentless aggressive plays ( usually on defense where he would fearlessly dive on thge floor nose -first to capture loose balls) And, on offense, he was always looking for a no-holds-barred drive to the rack. He was my favorite player while at Cal. Every team needs a Hasse-Like player whether on the floor or on the bench. In addition, his perimeter shooting was just good enough to keep the defenders honest. All credit cards accepted.

---

Dear Hell: You are not telling me anything I do not already know (except that he was your favorite player - mine was Kidd).

Civil Bear said:

---

Dear Hell: You are not telling me anything I do not already know (except that he was your favorite player - mine was Kidd).

---

Does anyone know how well Kidd and Haase got along?

stu said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Dear Hell: You are not telling me anything I do not already know (except that he was your favorite player - mine was Kidd).

---

Does anyone know how well Kidd and Haase got along?

---

I understand they were seen holding hands shopping for Kinkades in Lahaina during a Maui Classic. May not mean anything.