Can any of you very smart people come up w/ a depth chart with and without Lars?

calfanz said:

---

Can any of you very smart people come up w/ a depth chart with and without Lars?

---

I can't come up with anthing close to a depth chart as yet, but some thoughts:

Gordon could really help....IF he's finally OK after his injury.
Kelly was "lost". Hopefully, Fox finds him.
Grant A. needs to work on his body. Has ability to shoot mid-range and out, but really tries on the offensive glass
JHD....Under Fox, becomes a defensive stopper, helps on the boards. Nothing on offense.
Austin . Need his scoring but need him to distribute at the same time. Needs to up his D
Matt Bradley will play wherever he's needed and do very well


Thorpe will be coming off an injury. Don't know.
Kuany: hope he can help with rebounding and D...Don't know.
Brown: should get good minutes at PG
Trios....there something about his skill-set and attitude I really like. No idea about his D.

South: we're not going to be a decent rebounding team anytime soon. He averaged
5.1 per game. May be part of a 3-guard offense.

Lars: anywhere from starting center to spot-playerish. I'd don't care if he's been playing against
the Munchkins from OZ, he has some athletic ability (BTW: the Munchkins were party animals with
decent hoops skills)



GO BEARS!!!!

calfanz said:

---

Can any of you very smart people come up w/ a depth chart with and without Lars?

---

My sense of irony compels me to try and come up with a depth chart:

PG:
Austin
Brown
(maybe Bradley)
(maybe South)
(maybe Alters... is he still coming?)

SG:
Bradley
South (they will play together sometimes, too)
Harris-Dyson

SF:
Gordon
Klonares
Harris-Dyson

Bigs:
Anticevich
Kelly
Thorpe
Kuany
(insert the Big German in somewhere, depending on if we get him and if he's ready to play)

The situation is extremely liquid at this point! We don't really know ho good the new guys are going to be (or Gordon, for that matter), nor do we know how they will all fit into the new system.

Big C said:

---

calfanz said:

---

Can any of you very smart people come up w/ a depth chart with and without Lars?

---

My sense of irony compels me to try and come up with a depth chart:

PG:
Austin
Brown
(maybe Bradley)
(maybe South)
(maybe Alters... is he still coming?)

SG:
Bradley
South (they will play together sometimes, too)
Harris-Dyson

SF:
Gordon
Klonares
Harris-Dyson

Bigs:
Anticevich
Kelly
Thorpe
Kuany
(insert the Big German in somewhere, depending on if we get him and if he's ready to play)

The situation is extremely liquid at this point! We don't really know ho good the new guys are going to be (or Gordon, for that matter), nor do we know how they will all fit into the new system.

---

OK...since you went for it.....I basically agree.

We should be able tell fairly quickly how well Jacobi is. If he's not "right", I can't see risking the kid suffering emotionally and/or physically.

The only thing is the Bigs. I would move Kuany UP for 2 reasons: he's got an Australia connection AND he's got the best chance right now of being able to jump over a large phonebook. I, of course, don't know that.........
Thorpe is coming off an injury and Grant/Andre just have to get in better shape.
From what I've seen of Lars.....he's got some skills, but Bradley will have to protect him,

Even with all of the negatives....injuries, youth, beaming out of the Portal, apparent lack of rebounding, etc. WHY do I feel more confidence with these players than I did last year? (That's excluding coaching)?????

No quality big man will be a serious handicap. Most Pac 12 teams have some QUALITY siize. We have guys whose main skill is being talll.

caltagjohnson said:

---

No quality big man will be a serious handicap. Most Pac 12 teams have some QUALITY siize. We have guys whose main skill is being talll.

---

So p.o'd that Vanover left

caltagjohnson said:

---

No quality big man will be a serious handicap. Most Pac 12 teams have some QUALITY siize. We have guys whose main skill is being talll.

---

I think we had to expect that. The odds of getting a quality big man as a freshman, and have him playing like an upperclassman as a freshman, are very slim, maybe one in a thousand. There is only a handful of good big recruits every year, and 350 schools chasing them. The big name schools can get 2 or 3 of them in a class. The odds of getting a good one for a coach arriving as late as Fox has arrived are out of sight. Good grad transfer bigs are even rarer.

A quality big man should mean he will be a quality player at least by his junior year, because most big kids arrive in college pretty raw. They dominated in high school because it was high school, and they were older and taller than the other kids. In college, they usually have to start all over again, as freshmen trying to score and defend against juniors and seniors. We really need to take the long view, because this year will be a learning year for all the bigs. I'm guessing that in the third year, if they are any good, is when we will see the quality emerge.

I'll disagree with you on our guys only skill being tall. Kelly has a nice shot, and some post moves and skills. Anticevich is coming along, albeit slowly. Wyking never played him enough for us to know exactly how much he could do. Neither one rebounds well, or defends well. We know absolutely nothing about Kauny's or Thorpe's skills, until we see them play. I would agree that they all have enough height, and height is the one thing that can't be taught.

caltagjohnson said:

---

No quality big man will be a serious handicap. Most Pac 12 teams have some QUALITY siize. We have guys whose main skill is being talll.

---

And they're not even that tall, really. Echo other poster's disappointment about Vanover leaving, but now, it's water under the bridge (Arkansas joke only intended in retrospect).

Even the coaches won't know what to expect about most of these guys, especially the bigs, until they get then all together on the court and see what they have. Then, they also don't know how they're going to take to coaching.

Gordon -- who knows how that's going to turn out?
Kelly -- could be pretty good, if he really works, but who knows?
Anticevich -- most known quantity. Hoping for incremental improvement.
Thorpe -- really don't know yet, especially coming off the injury.
Kuany -- dunno if he can contribute at this point, maybe an upside there.
German -- no idea if he's coming, how tall he really is, or how good he really is

To me, that makes for an interesting season. Seriously!

I think that Bradley and South can rebound well for their position and size.
I wonder if we will see a lot of Bradley, South, and Austin together on the floor. All three have the ability to score and get up and down the court. Big guys then would need to be able to rebound and defend.

89Bear said:

---

I think that Bradley and South can rebound well for their position and size.
I wonder if we will see a lot of Bradley, South, and Austin together on the floor. All three have the ability to score and get up and down the court. Big guys then would need to be able to rebound and defend.

---

Yes, all three will start.

my best guess on the starting line-up:
austin
south
bradley
harris-dyson
anticevich ( someone has to start but many will get minutes )

89Bear said:

---

I think that Bradley and South can rebound well for their position and size.
I wonder if we will see a lot of Bradley, South, and Austin together on the floor. All three have the ability to score and get up and down the court. Big guys then would need to be able to rebound and defend.

---

And if we start Kelly and Anticevich, we'll have the shortest lineup in the conference. To do what you suggest, I think Thorpe and Kuany might be the better bigs to give you some defense and rebounding. Kuany looks to me like he can run the floor, so I'd like to see him at SF some of the time in a bigger lineup. Much depends on whether the injured players, Jacobi and Thorpe, can give us good minutes. Still some holes, and a lot of questions, which makes it interesting. Biggest question in my mind is Fox. Can he coach? He is the key to the whole thing. I wonder if Brown or even South can move ahead of Austin. We need better point guard play at both ends. In any case, so many freshmen and sophs means we are not likely to be very good until they mature in a year or two.

graguna said:

---

my best guess on the starting line-up:
austin
south
bradley
harris-dyson
anticevich ( someone has to start but many will get minutes )

---

I highly doubt Fox goes that small, based on what's he's done at both Nevada and Georgia, especially since he's been a more defensive-oriented coach that plays at a moderate pace.

The exciting (and scary for some) thing is that other than maybe Austin and perhaps Bradley (was the best 3pt shooter on the team by a large margin at 47%), there's no one that has a starting position on lock. I think Kelly gets the nod at the 5, especially if the German center doesn't come on board. He had a good start to the season last year and he's got the talent to be a scoring threat (was the only player in the team to shoot better than 50%) and presence on the boards.

My best guess as of today:
1 - Austin
2 - South
3 - Bradley
4 - Anticevich
5 - Kelly

That said I wouldn't be surprised if South comes off the bench as a 6th man if Gordon or Klonaras emerge at the wing spot opposite Bradley.

graguna said:

---

my best guess on the starting line-up:
austin
south
bradley
harris-dyson
anticevich ( someone has to start but many will get minutes )

---

Don't you think that lineup is too short? Harris-Dyson has some value off the bench, but playing Anticevich and Dyson together for long stretches, two guys who don't score (Unless the Ant can improve a lot over the summer), is a risk, isn't it?

Kelly and Anticevich had the best rebounding rates (save for Roman Davis, who played a lot less than both of them) on the team last season. For Kelly, he profiles as a center anyway, because of his girth at 260 lbs. He also seems to have decently long arms for his height. I don't think a front court with them is all that undersized in the college game these days.

SFCityBear said:

---

89Bear said:

---

I think that Bradley and South can rebound well for their position and size.
I wonder if we will see a lot of Bradley, South, and Austin together on the floor. All three have the ability to score and get up and down the court. Big guys then would need to be able to rebound and defend.

---

And if we start Kelly and Anticevich, we'll have the shortest lineup in the conference. To do what you suggest, I think Thorpe and Kuany might be the better bigs to give you some defense and rebounding. Kuany looks to me like he can run the floor, so I'd like to see him at SF some of the time in a bigger lineup. Much depends on whether the injured players, Jacobi and Thorpe, can give us good minutes. Still some holes, and a lot of questions, which makes it interesting. Biggest question in my mind is Fox. Can he coach? He is the key to the whole thing. I wonder if Brown or even South can move ahead of Austin. We need better point guard play at both ends. In any case, so many freshmen and sophs means we are not likely to be very good until they mature in a year or two.

---

Civil Bear said:

---

89Bear said:

---

I think that Bradley and South can rebound well for their position and size.
I wonder if we will see a lot of Bradley, South, and Austin together on the floor. All three have the ability to score and get up and down the court. Big guys then would need to be able to rebound and defend.

---

Yes, all three will start.

---

I agree there is a good chance those three will start, or at least be on the court together at times. I am a little worried, with Austin a 6'0", South at 6'2" and Bradley at 6'4". I guess that is not tiny, but there's not a lot of length there, and I wonder how well they will be able to guard the perimeter.

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Kelly and Anticevich had the best rebounding rates (save for Roman Davis, who played a lot less than both of them) on the team last season. For Kelly, he profiles as a center anyway, because of his girth at 260 lbs. He also seems to have decently long arms for his height. I don't think a front court with them is all that undersized in the college game these days.

SFCityBear said:

---

89Bear said:

---

I think that Bradley and South can rebound well for their position and size.
I wonder if we will see a lot of Bradley, South, and Austin together on the floor. All three have the ability to score and get up and down the court. Big guys then would need to be able to rebound and defend.

---

And if we start Kelly and Anticevich, we'll have the shortest lineup in the conference. To do what you suggest, I think Thorpe and Kuany might be the better bigs to give you some defense and rebounding. Kuany looks to me like he can run the floor, so I'd like to see him at SF some of the time in a bigger lineup. Much depends on whether the injured players, Jacobi and Thorpe, can give us good minutes. Still some holes, and a lot of questions, which makes it interesting. Biggest question in my mind is Fox. Can he coach? He is the key to the whole thing. I wonder if Brown or even South can move ahead of Austin. We need better point guard play at both ends. In any case, so many freshmen and sophs means we are not likely to be very good until they mature in a year or two.

---

---

I really like your optimism with respect to Kelly and Anticevich. They do have the height and bulk to become good rebounders. Rebounding can be taught to an extent. Blocking out can be taught. Athleticism can not be taught, maybe improved, but not learned. Anticipation comes with experience.

But looking at rebounding rates when compared to the rest of the Cal team is misleading, because last season, Cal was the worst or 2nd worst rebounding team out of 351 teams in the NCAA Division 1, depending on whose statistics you look at. Being among the best rebounders on an awful rebounding team does not say much. And if rebounding rate is a key stat, then maybe Fox should take a look at Blake Welle as a potential starter. His rebounding rate was better than Kelly, Anticevich, Davis, or Sueing (the team's best rebounder game after game).

In the eyeball test, I wondered all season why Kelly could not get more rebounds, with his size. He does not jump well, but still he got very few. I seldom saw him get one, and can't remember hardly any from Anticevich. Thorpe has the genes from his father, and I hope anticipation for rebounds was one of them, and if he has recovered from his injury, he could be a player. Kuany looks to have the athleticism and the size to rebound. One edge that Kelly and Anticevich have over Thorpe and Kuany is experience, a year for Kelly and two for Anticevich. But if they start, as you suggest, I think they have to improve their rebounding a whole lot for Cal to have a formidable rebounding front line. BTW, Thiemann looked like a tiger on the boards in the one video I saw, but he also looked like he could not play a lick of defense. Every player has deficiencies, especially incoming freshmen, and in that sense, we may well see Kelly and Anticevich get the early nod as starters, because they are veterans with a little experience.

Pretty misleading to point out Welle as having the best rebounding rate on the team as he only played 4 minutes in 4 games the entire season. And grabbed 1 rebound in those 4 minutes. That's essentially the same as saying David Serge should start next season because he averaged 40 pts per 40 minutes based on the 3 garbage time minutes he played last season.

Rebound rate is more predictive with bigger sample sizes.

SFCityBear said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Kelly and Anticevich had the best rebounding rates (save for Roman Davis, who played a lot less than both of them) on the team last season. For Kelly, he profiles as a center anyway, because of his girth at 260 lbs. He also seems to have decently long arms for his height. I don't think a front court with them is all that undersized in the college game these days.

SFCityBear said:

---

89Bear said:

---

I think that Bradley and South can rebound well for their position and size.
I wonder if we will see a lot of Bradley, South, and Austin together on the floor. All three have the ability to score and get up and down the court. Big guys then would need to be able to rebound and defend.

---

And if we start Kelly and Anticevich, we'll have the shortest lineup in the conference. To do what you suggest, I think Thorpe and Kuany might be the better bigs to give you some defense and rebounding. Kuany looks to me like he can run the floor, so I'd like to see him at SF some of the time in a bigger lineup. Much depends on whether the injured players, Jacobi and Thorpe, can give us good minutes. Still some holes, and a lot of questions, which makes it interesting. Biggest question in my mind is Fox. Can he coach? He is the key to the whole thing. I wonder if Brown or even South can move ahead of Austin. We need better point guard play at both ends. In any case, so many freshmen and sophs means we are not likely to be very good until they mature in a year or two.

---

---

I really like your optimism with respect to Kelly and Anticevich. They do have the height and bulk to become good rebounders. Rebounding can be taught to an extent. Blocking out can be taught. Athleticism can not be taught, maybe improved, but not learned. Anticipation comes with experience.

But looking at rebounding rates when compared to the rest of the Cal team is misleading, because last season, Cal was the worst or 2nd worst rebounding team out of 351 teams in the NCAA Division 1, depending on whose statistics you look at. Being among the best rebounders on an awful rebounding team does not say much. And if rebounding rate is a key stat, then maybe Fox should take a look at Blake Welle as a potential starter. His rebounding rate was better than Kelly, Anticevich, Davis, or Sueing (the team's best rebounder game after game).

In the eyeball test, I wondered all season why Kelly could not get more rebounds, with his size. He does not jump well, but still he got very few. I seldom saw him get one, and can't remember hardly any from Anticevich. Thorpe has the genes from his father, and I hope anticipation for rebounds was one of them, and if he has recovered from his injury, he could be a player. Kuany looks to have the athleticism and the size to rebound. One edge that Kelly and Anticevich have over Thorpe and Kuany is experience, a year for Kelly and two for Anticevich. But if they start, as you suggest, I think they have to improve their rebounding a whole lot for Cal to have a formidable rebounding front line. BTW, Thiemann looked like a tiger on the boards in the one video I saw, but he also looked like he could not play a lick of defense. Every player has deficiencies, especially incoming freshmen, and in that sense, we may well see Kelly and Anticevich get the early nod as starters, because they are veterans with a little experience.

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Pretty misleading to point out Welle as having the best rebounding rate on the team as he only played 4 minutes in 4 games the entire season. And grabbed 1 rebound in those 4 minutes. That's essentially the same as saying David Serge should start next season because he averaged 40 pts per 40 minutes based on the 3 garbage time minutes he played last season.

Rebound rate is more predictive with bigger sample sizes.

SFCityBear said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Kelly and Anticevich had the best rebounding rates (save for Roman Davis, who played a lot less than both of them) on the team last season. For Kelly, he profiles as a center anyway, because of his girth at 260 lbs. He also seems to have decently long arms for his height. I don't think a front court with them is all that undersized in the college game these days.

SFCityBear said:

---

89Bear said:

---

I think that Bradley and South can rebound well for their position and size.
I wonder if we will see a lot of Bradley, South, and Austin together on the floor. All three have the ability to score and get up and down the court. Big guys then would need to be able to rebound and defend.

---

And if we start Kelly and Anticevich, we'll have the shortest lineup in the conference. To do what you suggest, I think Thorpe and Kuany might be the better bigs to give you some defense and rebounding. Kuany looks to me like he can run the floor, so I'd like to see him at SF some of the time in a bigger lineup. Much depends on whether the injured players, Jacobi and Thorpe, can give us good minutes. Still some holes, and a lot of questions, which makes it interesting. Biggest question in my mind is Fox. Can he coach? He is the key to the whole thing. I wonder if Brown or even South can move ahead of Austin. We need better point guard play at both ends. In any case, so many freshmen and sophs means we are not likely to be very good until they mature in a year or two.

---

---

I really like your optimism with respect to Kelly and Anticevich. They do have the height and bulk to become good rebounders. Rebounding can be taught to an extent. Blocking out can be taught. Athleticism can not be taught, maybe improved, but not learned. Anticipation comes with experience.

But looking at rebounding rates when compared to the rest of the Cal team is misleading, because last season, Cal was the worst or 2nd worst rebounding team out of 351 teams in the NCAA Division 1, depending on whose statistics you look at. Being among the best rebounders on an awful rebounding team does not say much. And if rebounding rate is a key stat, then maybe Fox should take a look at Blake Welle as a potential starter. His rebounding rate was better than Kelly, Anticevich, Davis, or Sueing (the team's best rebounder game after game).

In the eyeball test, I wondered all season why Kelly could not get more rebounds, with his size. He does not jump well, but still he got very few. I seldom saw him get one, and can't remember hardly any from Anticevich. Thorpe has the genes from his father, and I hope anticipation for rebounds was one of them, and if he has recovered from his injury, he could be a player. Kuany looks to have the athleticism and the size to rebound. One edge that Kelly and Anticevich have over Thorpe and Kuany is experience, a year for Kelly and two for Anticevich. But if they start, as you suggest, I think they have to improve their rebounding a whole lot for Cal to have a formidable rebounding front line. BTW, Thiemann looked like a tiger on the boards in the one video I saw, but he also looked like he could not play a lick of defense. Every player has deficiencies, especially incoming freshmen, and in that sense, we may well see Kelly and Anticevich get the early nod as starters, because they are veterans with a little experience.

---

---

I brought up Welle as a little attempt at humor, and I'm sorry you didn't get that. My larger point was that comparing Kelly's and Anticevich's rebound rates with the rest of their Cal teammates is not meaningful, unless you are trying to predict what they might do this year, except that the roster has now changed dramatically. There are new teammates whose rebounding rates are all unknown, except for South, a guard. Basketball is all about matchups at each position. (Don Nelson said that) A lot of the players last year were guards and wings, not bigs like Kelly and Grant.

Let's compare Kelly and Grant with other bigs. Kelly's rebound rate is 7.6 rebounds per 40 minutes, and Grant's is 7.4. That is about average for 51 PAC12 bigs, including starters and the main subs. Rebound rates for rotation PAC12 bigs are higher:

ASU: Cheatham 12.8, Lake 11.4
AZ: Jeter 10.6, Lake 9.5
Colo: Siewert 7.9, Battey 8.2 (but they had a guard, Tyler Bey at 15.0!)
USC: Rakocevic 12.4
UCLA: Brown 14.2, Riley 9.5 (plus a guard, 6-10 Jalen Hill at 11.9)
UW: Dickerson 11.6
Ore: Bol 12.9 (who played 9 games and got hurt), Wooten 8.0, Okoro 9.5
OSU: Tinkle 8.9, Kelley 8.5
Stanford: Sharma 12.8, Da Silva 8.5
WSU: Elleby 9.2, Franks 8.4, and Wade 9.6

Every PAC12 team had at least one rebounder with a better rate than anyone Cal had

Looking at some former Cal players' rebounding rates:

Kinglsey Okoroh 8.6 (10.4 in 2016-17 season)
Marcus Lee 10.4
Ivan Rabb 12.4
David Kravish 9.3
Richard Solomon 12.4 (14.0 in 2014, a real stud on the glass that season)
Robert Thurman 8.4 in 2013
Jamal Boykin 9.6
Devon Hardin 11.7
Leon Powe 10.1 in 2006

For Cal to be a good rebounding team, and compete for the conference title, the veterans like Kelly and Grant will have to improve quite a bit, get up to a rate of 9 or 10 rebounds in 40 minutes, or Cal will have to find bigs who can do that. And the guards will all need to step up their rebounding as well.

Another thing that Kelly and Grant will have to fix is that they both foul too much, 4.7 fouls in 40 minutes for Andre, and 5.5 for Grant. They need to cut down on that, so they can get more playing time.

Quote:

---

Looking at some former Cal players' rebounding rates:

Kinglsey Okoroh 8.6 (10.4 in 2016-17 season)
Marcus Lee 10.4
Ivan Rabb 12.4
David Kravish 9.3
Richard Solomon 12.4 (14.0 in 2014, a real stud on the glass that season)
Robert Thurman 8.4 in 2013
Jamal Boykin 9.6
Devon Hardin 11.7
Leon Powe 10.1 in 2006

---

Last season Kristine Anigwe averaged 18.7 per 40 minutes overall, 19.97 in conference games. I wonder if she has any brothers?

IMHO a better measure would be fraction of rebounds while you are on the court. Unfortunately that's a complex calculation which requires a play-by-play stat sheet from each game.