just watched the recording of the game. It wasn't the blowout like the duke game, but in the second half there was never any push and cal never threatened texas

Good

Bradley - there is zero doubt who our best player is

Lars - still raw, but as the color guy said, he has a lot of potential

Dyson's defense - I watched him all game on defense, and he is greatly improved this year, and his understanding of defense is night and day better than last year

Rebounding - 34 each despite Texas's size advantage

Bad

Cal's offense

Another center thrashing us inside

Officials - every 50-50 ball, and even 60-40 balls went against Cal

Ugly

Cal's FT shooting - if you take away Bradley's 11-11, rest of team went 1-9 (including front end of 1 and 1s)

Dyson getting hurt. Not sure what his earlier injury was, but he hurt the knee that he was wearing the knee pad on. I thought he played very well on defense, and didn't force it on offense, scoring 2-2 shots. Hope he's okay

we need to find kids that can score to aid bradley. i thought south was the guy but he got lost in nyc.

calgo430 said:

---

we need to find kids that can score to aid bradley. i thought south was the guy but he got lost in nyc.

---

I was going to ask where South has been. Shooting 29.4% from three.

Wonder where he is.....I've gotten lost in NYC a couple of times. Man, you get on the wrong train and.......

This season seems likely to be a litmus test of Fox's coaching skills. Clearly, Bradley is head and shoulders above the rest in terms of ability. Thiemann looks like the basketball equivalent of a St. Bernarnard puppy. There's some promise lurking in there but it may take years to bring it out. I thought Thorpe showed flashes against Duke and was surprised he got so little court time against Texas. I expected Brown, with his international experience, to be more polished but he looks to be in over his head. Of course, many talented frosh seem to struggle with the transition to college ball, so maybe he'll yet be a strong contributor and an obvious need is a strong floor leader. Harris-Dyson has some athletic ability but seems to translate it to production only sporadically. I thought we've looked much better defensively most of the time but it sure looks as if rebounding is going to be a season long struggle.

Fox has his hands full, that's for sure. Fortunately, I don't get the feeling that the team is under-performing relative to its talent which was an issue under both Jones and Martin. Despite being uncompetitive the last 2 games, I think has done a good job thus far. But it's gonna be a tough road. Of all the teams we've played, Texas is most similar talent-wise to what we'll face routinely in the P12. So I'm taking more away from the Texas game than any of the others.

It's clear that this is 100% Bradley's team. He looks great but that's a huge burden for one guy to carry. I'd really like to see Anticevich become a second focal point of the offense. He has a lot of tools but it seems like he disappears and especially so against Duke and Texas. That has to change. He NEEDS to be a 15 ppg scorer every night and be that kind of focus offensively.

At this point; Kelly should probably start at the 5. Even though his lack of size and athleticism limits him against the kind of bigs that Duke and Texas had, he's got polished offensive tools and it's probably our best bet. Seems like I'm less optimistic about Thiemann compared to most. I think he can develop into a useful player but right now, he's a huge liability both offensively and defensively. He's got good measurables obviously but he plays small and slow which makes him pretty easy to handle. Hard to tell what Kuany and Thorpe can contribute but I'd like to see more of those guys.

Souse:

I think the problem with Grant is that he's not quick. He has good basketball IQ, has an excellent release, and can be a hardnosed rebounder, but his lack of quickness means that quick long wings can take him out of the game on offense.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Souse:

I think the problem with Grant is that he's not quick. He has good basketball IQ, has an excellent release, and can be a hardnosed rebounder, but his lack of quickness means that quick long wings can take him out of the game on offense.

---

Agree. Love his fundamentals and hoops IQ

I am surprised his shooting is so good, but loving it

But you summarized the problem. Defenses are now taking away his shot

I also have to give him kudos for his rebounding

He has less length, athleticism, and hops than most bigs, but he's rebounding very well

The dude works hard, and again has great fundamentals

HoopDreams said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Souse:

I think the problem with Grant is that he's not quick. He has good basketball IQ, has an excellent release, and can be a hardnosed rebounder, but his lack of quickness means that quick long wings can take him out of the game on offense.

---

Agree. Love his fundamentals and hoops IQ

I am surprised his shooting is so good, but loving it

But you summarized the problem. Defenses are now taking away his shot

I also have to give him kudos for his rebounding

He has less length, athleticism, and hops than most bigs, but he's rebounding very well

The dude works hard, and again has great fundamentals

---

He's an Aussie, mate.

I am much higher on Lars than most on this board. He is coordinated, well proportioned and has a nice touch around the basket. Give him a couple of years. Vanover was horrible and always will be. How much did his 3 ball help in the 16 consecutive losses?

Ursa- Yeah, I agree about the quickness factor. When I think of an ideal comp for Anticevich, it would be someone like Luke Maye last year at UNC. He wasn't very quick either but was still very effective inside and out. Or someone like Josh Hawkinson from Wazzu a few years back. Regardless, there's no reason why we can't get Anticevich in scoring situations more than 5 times a game. He may be our 2nd most talented player, so we need to get him going.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Ursa- Yeah, I agree about the quickness factor. When I think of an ideal comp for Anticevich, it would be someone like Luke Maye last year at UNC. He wasn't very quick either but was still very effective inside and out. Or someone like Josh Hawkinson from Wazzu a few years back. Regardless, there's no reason why we can't get Anticevich in scoring situations more than 5 times a game. He may be our 2nd most talented player, so we need to get him going.

---

Respectively disagree. Grant is a glue-gue with a sweet stroke that can get you 15 if left open. He cannot create or shoot off the dribble, and off the ball he will be setting screens rather than coming off them or slashing to the basket.

bearister said:

---

I am much higher on Lars than most on this board. He is coordinated, well proportioned and has a nice touch around the basket. Give him a couple of years. Vanover was horrible and always will be. How much did his 3 ball help in the 16 consecutive losses?

---

What a ridiculous thing to say. I don't think you're being realistic. Are you watching the same guy that I am? I would trade Lars back for Vanover in a minute. More agility. You don't like 7ft3 guys that can shoot 3 pointers? What planet are you on?

Problem is I had hoped Lars-would be better than Vanover on defense. Not happening....yet. Still think Lars will be a good player. He did get 8 against Duke. Kelly can shoot threes, if we need a big man to do that.

calgo430 said:

---

we need to find kids that can score to aid bradley. i thought south was the guy but he got lost in nyc.

---

South is a decent player for us, but he has his limitations. He probably wouldn't earn 25 mpg on too many Pac 12-type teams, but he will for us, this season. A good two-way fit for this year.

Fox needs to install some offense that allows guys with the level of athletic ability Cal has to get open shots. I was disappointed to see the Texas game (and the Duke game) devolve into 6th grade, one on five with four guys standing around. Off the ball screens for Grant would help.

Big C said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

bearister said:

---

I am much higher on Lars than most on this board. He is coordinated, well proportioned and has a nice touch around the basket. Give him a couple of years. Vanover was horrible and always will be. How much did his 3 ball help in the 16 consecutive losses?

---

What a ridiculous thing to say. I don't think you're being realistic. Are you watching the same guy that I am? I would trade Lars back for Vanover in a minute. More agility. You don't like 7ft3 guys that can shoot 3 pointers? What planet are you on?

---

Yeah, the Vanover we saw in February and March was beginning to morph into a monster. Even his "D" was vastly improved. If Lars improves anything close to the way Vanover did, we'll be in business, because the November Lars is better than the 2018 November Vanover was.

---

The question is will Cal fans give Lars as long a time to improve as they gave Vanover? (Actually, a lot of Cal fans had totally given up on Vanover through the first 20 games, and his improvement in the last 3 was a surprise to many of us).

Some of us are already wanting to replace Lars with Kelly. Kelly is very young too, and very raw. He has his limitations as well. In order to help players improve and to give Cal as good a record this year as possible, I think we need all hands on deck. Fox may decide to give Thorpe or Kuany time in the post. But, ALL OF OUR BIGS ARE VERY GREEN. Too early to shove any of them to the bench. Trust Mark Fox for now.

Kelly is surprisingly un-athletic. Lars is tentative, and thus, appears less athletic than he is. Kelly is not a 5: he likely could be a decent 4 if someone else could be the 5. Kelly has good size, but he doesn't jump and doesn't demonstrate good "feel" when trying to shoot over bigger talented players.

bearchamp said:

---

Fox needs to install some offense that allows guys with the level of athletic ability Cal has to get open shots. I was disappointed to see the Texas game (and the Duke game) devolve into 6th grade, one on five with four guys standing around. Off the ball screens for Grant would help.

---

Um, really? The reason players can't get open shots is that they're not very good, or that none of the other four players are good enough to require serious defensive attention.

Expecting an "offense" to create shots is magical thinking, I'm afraid. Once the opponent scouts the patterns and options, it's up to the players to make plays -- and even changing things up right before gametime (assuming your players can handle it) triggers a pretty quick adjustment.

SFCityBear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

bearister said:

---

I am much higher on Lars than most on this board. He is coordinated, well proportioned and has a nice touch around the basket. Give him a couple of years. Vanover was horrible and always will be. How much did his 3 ball help in the 16 consecutive losses?

---

What a ridiculous thing to say. I don't think you're being realistic. Are you watching the same guy that I am? I would trade Lars back for Vanover in a minute. More agility. You don't like 7ft3 guys that can shoot 3 pointers? What planet are you on?

---

You sure give up easy on a player, a big freshman with a soft shooting touch, six games into his freshman year in a new country, thousands of miles from home. He's got plenty of upside. He is a freshman, for goodness sakes!

As for Vanover shooting threes, yes he can shoot them. So can Tyrone Wallace. The question is can he make them? Vanover shot 35%. That is just average. And he was just a freshman, too. We'll see how he does over time. I liked him more for his shot blocking and bothering shots. I could care less if a 7-footer can hit threes. I'd rather have him playing near the basket to get offensive rebounds and an easy putback or tip in, a very rare quality in the Cal roster these days and the last couple of years. If we do the math, he averaged 1.065 points on three point attempts, and averaged 1.108 points on two point attempts. I think Lars looks pretty good shooting the ball. What he needs is more shots, and that is partly on him to learn how to get open, and partly on Fox finding someone who can play a decent point guard, and Fox teaching an offense that will have everyone looking to find the open man. It worked OK for the first few games, not too well in NYC. Our offensive point guard play is abysmal. Austin averaging 2 assists, Brown averaging less than 2. Both of them have negative assist to turnover ratios, which is really pathetic. Sorry to digress, but we have more to work on than having bigs to shoot threes. That is a plus, but not a requirement.

---

SF City. It's not that I'm giving up on Lars but I think everybody is viewing Vanover's ability through Bear-tinted glasses because he left. The comment about him shooting threes was worthless during the 16 losses is ridiculous. It would have been 19 losses if it WASN'T for Vanover's shooting. You saw those 3 wins like everybody else here and without Vanover's shooting Cal wouldn't have won those games. At the end of the season, the 2 guys no one wanted to lose to the transfer portal were Bradley and Vanover. And honestly, you don't care about a 7 footer than can hit threes? You're not being honest with yourself.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

bearister said:

---

I am much higher on Lars than most on this board. He is coordinated, well proportioned and has a nice touch around the basket. Give him a couple of years. Vanover was horrible and always will be. How much did his 3 ball help in the 16 consecutive losses?

---

What a ridiculous thing to say. I don't think you're being realistic. Are you watching the same guy that I am? I would trade Lars back for Vanover in a minute. More agility. You don't like 7ft3 guys that can shoot 3 pointers? What planet are you on?

---

You sure give up easy on a player, a big freshman with a soft shooting touch, six games into his freshman year in a new country, thousands of miles from home. He's got plenty of upside. He is a freshman, for goodness sakes!

As for Vanover shooting threes, yes he can shoot them. So can Tyrone Wallace. The question is can he make them? Vanover shot 35%. That is just average. And he was just a freshman, too. We'll see how he does over time. I liked him more for his shot blocking and bothering shots. I could care less if a 7-footer can hit threes. I'd rather have him playing near the basket to get offensive rebounds and an easy putback or tip in, a very rare quality in the Cal roster these days and the last couple of years. If we do the math, he averaged 1.065 points on three point attempts, and averaged 1.108 points on two point attempts. I think Lars looks pretty good shooting the ball. What he needs is more shots, and that is partly on him to learn how to get open, and partly on Fox finding someone who can play a decent point guard, and Fox teaching an offense that will have everyone looking to find the open man. It worked OK for the first few games, not too well in NYC. Our offensive point guard play is abysmal. Austin averaging 2 assists, Brown averaging less than 2. Both of them have negative assist to turnover ratios, which is really pathetic. Sorry to digress, but we have more to work on than having bigs to shoot threes. That is a plus, but not a requirement.

---

SF City. It's not that I'm giving up on Lars but I think everybody is viewing Vanover's ability through Bear-tinted glasses because he left. The comment about him shooting threes was worthless during the 16 losses is ridiculous. It would have been 19 losses if it WASN'T for Vanover's shooting. You saw those 3 wins like everybody else here and without Vanover's shooting Cal wouldn't have won those games. At the end of the season, the 2 guys no one wanted to lose to the transfer portal were Bradley and Vanover. And honestly, you don't care about a 7 footer than can hit threes? You're not being honest with yourself.

---

You are comparing what Vanover did in his final three regular season games at Cal vs what Lars did in his first six games at Cal? Prior to those last 3 games, Vanover had 25 college games under his belt, 12 of those games as a starter. Lars had no prior D1 experience before his first 6 games, which you are saying are not near as good as Vanover's at the end of his first season. You are comparing apples to oranges, and yet you say I'm not being honest with myself.

If we want to be honest, we need to compare Lars' first 6 games at Cal with Vanover's first 6 games at Cal. Here are the numbers for their first 6 games:

Games started: Vanover 0, Lars 6
Minutes/game: Vanover 9.1, Lars 15.5
FG/A: Vanover 10/16, Lars 10/20
FG%: Vanover 62.5%
3FG/A: Vanover 3/8, Lars 0/0
FT/FTA: Vanover 2/2 Lars 5/8
Points: Vanover 27, Lars 17
Rebounds: Vanover 9, Lars 10
Blocks: Vanover 4, Lars 4
Steals: Vanover 0, Lars 3
Assists: Vanover 0, Lars 1
Turnovers: Vanover 2, Lars 2
Cal team record during these 6 games: Vanover 2-4, Lars 4-2

Vanover was slightly better in most categories, plus he can shoot threes. But we also need to consider that the two players played different schedules with a different head coach. Vanover faced no top 25 teams in his first 6 games, and Lars faced #1 Duke and #22 Texas in his first 6 games, so Lars had the tougher opponents. Lars had the better coach, IMO, and Vanover was not able to supplant Kelly from the lineup under Jones until late in the season. This season Kelly is a year older, but he has been unable to supplant Lars from the starting lineup under Fox. Don't forget that after a few games most fans on the BI did not want Vanover playing much, because he got pushed around so easily and could not stop anyone on defense, or so it seemed. Similarly, a lot of fans are saying the Lars is too slow to guard anyone and want Kelly to start. You accurately describe that Vanover improved, but are not willing apparently to give Lars the same chance. Let's see what he looks like after another 20 games.

Here are Vanover's numbers for his final 3 regular season games at Cal:

Games started: 3/3
Minutes/game: improved from 9.1 to 28
FG%: tiny drop from 62.5% to 61.8%
3FG%: Huge improvement from 37.5% to 63.6%
FT%: Drop from 100% to 75% on a small sample. He does not get to the line very often.
Points: Huge improvement from 4.5 to 20.6 per game
Rebounds: Big improvement from 1.5 to 6.0 rebounds per game
Blocks: Big improvement in blocks from 0.67 per game to 2.67 per game
Steals: A small improvement from 0 in first 6 games to 1 in his last three games
Assists: An improvement from 0 in his first 6 games to 2 in his last three games
Turnovers: A small drop from 2 in his first 6 games to 3 in his last three games

He showed good improvement from the early season to the last 3 regular season games. Bear in mind that though UW was the PAC12's best team, they were not a top 25 team, an the other two opponents were not top 25 either. Bear in mind also that some of Vanover's improvement in stats is a result of playing 3 times as many minutes as he did in the first 6 games. Vanover's last game, in the PAC12 Tournament was not a good one, and his line resembled his early season games:

32 minutes, shot FGs at 33%, shot threes at 28.6%, scored only 8 points, got only 3 rebounds, had one assist and 2 turnovers, but did block 3 shots. I don't remember if Colorado shut him down, or if he had an off night. I don't think we can predict what his career will be like, based on three very good games, followed by a bad one. I don't think he will shoot anywhere near 64% on threes for his career.

As for me, I would have liked to have both of them share the post this year, maybe even a twin towers lineup, but I wouldn't trade Lars for him right now. Ask me again in a couple of years.

SFCityBear, you and I have seen our share of basketball games (you have seen more than me and also have more hoop analytical expertise). You and I have seen our share of college 7 footers that struggle making a put back or doing a turn around bank hook. Lars can do both. He also is well proportioned and could pass for 6'7 if you didn't see him standing next to someone to show scale. I have not concentrated on whether he is a good free throw shooter, but I assume if he is like most Euro players he is decent from the line. It is going to be a huge advantage in a close game in the closing minutes to have a 7 footer that has a good touch close to the basket and can make a FT when he gets hacked. He is no doofus and will be a good player for Cal. I will revisit this thread in two years and do a victory dance on the chest of his doubters.

I suppose you know the Princeton offense, which assumes Princeton has lesser talent but might still prevail.

bearchamp said:

---

I suppose you know the Princeton offense, which assumes Princeton has lesser talent but might still prevail.

---

See Wisconsin Green Bay v Cal, Kidd's 2nd trip to The Dance. Lamond Murray's explanation for the loss: " I just couldn't get up for the competition."

COLLEGE BASKETBALL / NCAA MEN'S TOURNAMENT : California's Dreaming Is Green Bay's Reality : West Regional: Fifth-seeded Bears are stunned by Wisconsin school, 61-57. Cal's two stars must now decide whether to turn pro. - Los Angeles Times


https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-18-sp-35547-story.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-18-sp-35547-story.html%3f_amp=true

Stanford men BB just beat an undefeated Oklahoma team by 19 pts. They are now 7-0. Mostly weak teams. Stanford is one less Pac 12 team Cal could possibly beat. We are down tp WSU, 2-4 Pac 12 wins is about what we can expect. It will take a couple of upsets.

caltagjohnson said:

---

Stanford men BB just beat an undefeated Oklahoma team by 19 pts. They are now 7-0. Mostly weak teams. Stanford is one less Pac 12 team Cal could possibly beat. We are down tp WSU, 2-4 Pac 12 wins is about what we can expect. It will take a couple of upsets.

---

Yeah, Stanfurd has been a big surprise this year. I thought they would be one of the teams Cal could challenge this year. They were only 15-16 last year (8-10 in P12), and ranked 112th in Kenpom rankings, and lost 3 of their top 5 players in Kezie Okpala, Josh Sharma and Cormac Ryan. Okpala especially was a big loss.

But they've been fairly impressive so far. It's not so much the 7-0 record, because, as you noted, the schedule hasn't been particularly tough, but the margins of victory. They've just looked much tougher than I've expected.

Very small sample size but Lars, as has been stated, is 5 for 8 from the line. DJ and Kuany are a combined
0 for 8.

Just sayin'.

Good call on Furd's win over Oklahoma.

Total Rebounds: Furd 51 Oklahoma 31.

bearister said:

---

" What a ridiculous thing to say." What charm school did you attend? I would like to enroll. When Vanover was on the court it was 5 on 4 basketball when Bears were on defense. He was the Pac 12's version of Shawn Bradley (as an NBA player).

---

Is "What a ridiculous thing to say" out of bounds? Was I supposed to call the poster a "moron" or a "clown" like some of the posters on this board.

Right now with Lars on the court its 4 on 5 when we have the ball. Again Texas he missed a 1 foot shot on the right baseline. And its interesting that you compared Vanover to a player that was good enough to play in the NBA.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

bearister said:

---

" What a ridiculous thing to say." What charm school did you attend? I would like to enroll. When Vanover was on the court it was 5 on 4 basketball when Bears were on defense. He was the Pac 12's version of Shawn Bradley (as an NBA player).

---

Is "What a ridiculous thing to say" out of bounds? Was I supposed to call the poster a "moron" or a "clown" like some of the posters on this board.

Right now with Lars on the court its 4 on 5 when we have the ball. Again Texas he missed a 1 foot shot on the right baseline. And its interesting that you compared Vanover to a player that was good enough to play in the NBA.

---

You are over-generalizing with your bashing of this freshman. Lars has two shots, and he looks a lot better shooting the ball than either the freshman Kingsley Okoroh, or the freshman Kam Rooks looked in the beginning of their freshman years, and maybe beyond. If I had a dollar for every 1-footer that they missed as freshmen, I could take you to a very nice lunch. I saw a good Cal center, Devon Hardin, miss a few 6-inch shots in his career, maybe taking his eye off the basket on a dunk. Please get a grip and get over losing Vanover. He was an average 3-point shooter, who had become a little more of a presence in the paint by the end of his first season. Would he help Cal now? Probably. Would he start? Possibly. Possibly not. Lars is not out there primarily to score the ball. He is out there to learn how to play with new teammates in a new system for a new coach, along with stop his opponent, protect the rim, and rebound. He is there to learn to score as well. You will notice he is being given more shots, 8 in the last game, and against Texas, he may have missed a 1-footer, but he took the most shots in a game so far, 8, and made 4, and he is shooting .500 overall, which is plenty good enough for an early start. Here is a list of Cal centers, with their FG% as freshmen, courtesy of sports-reference.com:

Max Zhang 0.692
Robert Thurman: 0.638 (soph transfer)
Mark McNamara 0.624 (freshman year at Santa Clara)
Ivan Rabb 0.615
Brian Hendrick 0.593
Richard Solomon 0.558
Andre Kelly: 0.551
Leonard Taylor 0.532
Solomon Hughes 0.524
Markhuri Sanders-Frison 0.524 (junior transfer)
Don McIntosh 0.514 (soph season - ineligible as a frosh)
Sean Marks 0.512
Devon Hardin 0.505
Rod Benson 0.500
Lars Theimann 0.500
John Carty 0.484
Bruce Steckel 0.483
Michael Stewart 0.477
Connor Vanover 0.469
Bob McKeen 0.462
Tom Schneiderjohn 0.462
Mike Henderson 0.462
Kingsley Okoroh 0.462
Ryan Jamison 0.455
Nick Van der Laan 0.452
Bob Presley 0.447 (junior transfer)
Ansley Truitt 0.442 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Jay Young 0.436
Francisco Elson 0.431
Kameron Rooks 0.429
Jamal Sampson 0.426
Amit Tamir 0.400
Duane Asplund 0.392 (soph -1st year at Cal)
Rock Lee 0.387
Jordan Wilkes 0.383
Camden Wall 0.375 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Chris Carpenter 0.361 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Carl Meier 0.355
Darrall Imhoff 0.353 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Gabriel Hughes 0.333
Taylor Harrison 0.296
Stan Morrison 0.200 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Dick Doughty 0.174 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)

You can see that Thiemann's FG% ranks him in the upper half of Cal centers for their freshman years, tied for 14th with Rod Benson. You can see that there are some very good or great players who had better freshman FG%: MacNamara, Rabb, Hendrick, Taylor, and Don Mcintosh who led Cal to an Elite 8 in 1958, losing in overtime. You can see that Theimann so far is having a better year shooting the ball than a lot of very good or great players had in their freshman years: Yogi Stewart, All-American Bob McKeen, Ansley Truitt, Bob Presley, Francisco Elson, Jamal Sampson, All-American Darrall Imhoff, who led Cal to the NCAA title in '59 and NCAA Runnerup in 1960, Dick Doughty (without him Cal does not win that NCAA title or the Runnerup.) along with Duane Asplund who led Cal to the Elite Eight in 1957.

I'd say that if you can use six games to bash Lars, then I can use the same six games to praise him. I think we need to wait much longer to do either one. Why the rush to judgment? Vanover is gone, and it wasn't Lars' fault. Lars is here now, and he needs our full support. Or at least he and his fans don't need to see him bashed after just 6 games.

SFCityBear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

bearister said:

---

" What a ridiculous thing to say." What charm school did you attend? I would like to enroll. When Vanover was on the court it was 5 on 4 basketball when Bears were on defense. He was the Pac 12's version of Shawn Bradley (as an NBA player).

---

Is "What a ridiculous thing to say" out of bounds? Was I supposed to call the poster a "moron" or a "clown" like some of the posters on this board.

Right now with Lars on the court its 4 on 5 when we have the ball. Again Texas he missed a 1 foot shot on the right baseline. And its interesting that you compared Vanover to a player that was good enough to play in the NBA.

---

You are over-generalizing with your bashing of this freshman. Lars has two shots, and he looks a lot better shooting the ball than either the freshman Kingsley Okoroh, or the freshman Kam Rooks looked in the beginning of their freshman years, and maybe beyond. If I had a dollar for every 1-footer that they missed as freshmen, I could take you to a very nice lunch. I saw a good Cal center, Devon Hardin, miss a few 6-inch shots in his career, maybe taking his eye off the basket on a dunk. Please get a grip and get over losing Vanover. He was an average 3-point shooter, who had become a little more of a presence in the paint by the end of his first season. Would he help Cal now? Probably. Would he start? Possibly. Possibly not. Lars is not out there primarily to score the ball. He is out there to learn how to play with new teammates in a new system for a new coach, along with stop his opponent, protect the rim, and rebound. He is there to learn to score as well. You will notice he is being given more shots, 8 in the last game, and against Texas, he may have missed a 1-footer, but he took the most shots in a game so far, 8, and made 4, and he is shooting .500 overall, which is plenty good enough for an early start. Here is a list of Cal centers, with their FG% as freshmen, courtesy of sports-reference.com:

Max Zhang 0.692
Robert Thurman: 0.638 (soph transfer)
Mark McNamara 0.624 (freshman year at Santa Clara)
Ivan Rabb 0.615
Brian Hendrick 0.593
Richard Solomon 0.558
Andre Kelly: 0.551
Leonard Taylor 0.532
Solomon Hughes 0.524
Markhuri Sanders-Frison 0.524 (junior transfer)
Don McIntosh 0.514 (soph season - ineligible as a frosh)
Sean Marks 0.512
Devon Hardin 0.505
Rod Benson 0.500
Lars Theimann 0.500
John Carty 0.484
Bruce Steckel 0.483
Michael Stewart 0.477
Connor Vanover 0.469
Bob McKeen 0.462
Tom Schneiderjohn 0.462
Mike Henderson 0.462
Kingsley Okoroh 0.462
Ryan Jamison 0.455
Nick Van der Laan 0.452
Bob Presley 0.447 (junior transfer)
Ansley Truitt 0.442 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Jay Young 0.436
Francisco Elson 0.431
Kameron Rooks 0.429
Jamal Sampson 0.426
Amit Tamir 0.400
Duane Asplund 0.392 (soph -1st year at Cal)
Rock Lee 0.387
Jordan Wilkes 0.383
Camden Wall 0.375 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Chris Carpenter 0.361 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Carl Meier 0.355
Darrall Imhoff 0.353 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Gabriel Hughes 0.333
Taylor Harrison 0.296
Stan Morrison 0.200 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)
Dick Doughty 0.174 (soph - ineligible as a freshman)

You can see that Thiemann's FG% ranks him in the upper half of Cal centers for their freshman years, tied for 14th with Rod Benson. You can see that there are some very good or great players who had better freshman FG%: MacNamara, Rabb, Hendrick, Taylor, and Don Mcintosh who led Cal to an Elite 8 in 1958, losing in overtime. You can see that Theimann so far is having a better year shooting the ball than a lot of very good or great players had in their freshman years: Yogi Stewart, All-American Bob McKeen, Ansley Truitt, Bob Presley, Francisco Elson, Jamal Sampson, All-American Darrall Imhoff, who led Cal to the NCAA title in '59 and NCAA Runnerup in 1960, Dick Doughty (without him Cal does not win that NCAA title or the Runnerup.) along with Duane Asplund who led Cal to the Elite Eight in 1957.

I'd say that if you can use six games to bash Lars, then I can use the same six games to praise him. I think we need to wait much longer to do either one. Why the rush to judgment? Vanover is gone, and it wasn't Lars' fault. Lars is here now, and he needs our full support. Or at least he and his fans don't need to see him bashed after just 6 games.

---

I'm glad you added some perspective to the comments on Thieman. When this thread first unfolded I was inclined to make a comparison to Imhoff and the rather torturous path his development took to his ultimate stature as a national champ, NBA player and Golden Bear Hall of Famer. Thieman is not only way more advance at this stage than was Imhoff, he might have a better shooting touch than Darrell ever achieved. He's very inexperienced, a bit mechanical and awkward at times but soft touch and height are gifts that can't be coached. They're different models but, IMO, his potential compares favorably with Vanover at this stage of development.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

bearister said:

---

" What a ridiculous thing to say." What charm school did you attend? I would like to enroll. When Vanover was on the court it was 5 on 4 basketball when Bears were on defense. He was the Pac 12's version of Shawn Bradley (as an NBA player).

---

Is "What a ridiculous thing to say" out of bounds? Was I supposed to call the poster a "moron" or a "clown" like some of the posters on this board.

Right now with Lars on the court its 4 on 5 when we have the ball. Again Texas he missed a 1 foot shot on the right baseline. And its interesting that you compared Vanover to a player that was good enough to play in the NBA.

---

Is What a ridiculous thing to say" out of bounds? Was I supposed to call the poster a "moron" or a "clown" like some of the posters on this board.

Response:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that based on any reasonable objective standard that my assessment of Lars is not "ridiculous" (nor clownish or moronic had you used those adjectives). It would have been ridiculous if I had said Lars is going to average 25 points this year or Cal is going to contend for the Pac 12 Championship. What is fair is that you don't scout Lars as positively as I do and you may turn out to be right.


Right now with Lars on the court its 4 on 5 when we have the ball. Again Texas he missed a 1 foot shot on the right baseline.

Response:

I disagree, but if that is true then it is the fault of his teammates not feeding him the rock inside. Defensive players will be very tempted to hack Lars down low because of his touch.

And its interesting that you compared Vanover to a player that was good enough to play in the NBA.
Response:
Note I was careful not to compare Vanover to college Shawn Bradley. Shawn Bradley was a soft doofus and makes most lists of biggest busts in NBA history. He was cute in Space Jams, however.

caltagjohnson said:

---

Stanford men BB just beat an undefeated Oklahoma team by 19 pts. They are now 7-0. Mostly weak teams. Stanford is one less Pac 12 team Cal could possibly beat. We are down tp WSU, 2-4 Pac 12 wins is about what we can expect. It will take a couple of upsets.

---

Have you looked at who Stanford beat so far? They have yet to face a ranked team. 5 of the 7 teams they played so far had losing records. One of the two winning teams Stanford faced, Santa Clara has 5 wins, 3 against losing teams and 2 against Division 2 schools. Oklahoma had 5 wins, but none came against a good opponent. The best win Oklahoma had was probably vs Oregon State. Stanford has yet to face a team with a top 100 ranked recruit.

Wheras Cal has faced the #1 ranked team, Duke, and the #22 ranked team, Texas on the road Cal has faced 4 teams with a total of 20 top 100 ranked recruits, Duke (8), Texas (10), Pepperdine (1), and UNLV (1).

I'd say Cal has played a much tougher schedule than Stanford. Not to mention that Cal just played 4 games in 8 days, with two back-to-back against top ranked teams with a 3000 mile road trip for the last 2 games. Cal was dead tired, especially the legs, in the last game against Texas. You could see it their shooting, which was awful, and they still hung in with the #22 team, cutting the lead to 9 with 5 minutes to go.

Stanford is not very tall or very deep. They are starting two freshmen. Stanford is shooting the lights out on threes, and that will slow down by conference time. Without having seen Stanford play, it looks like we might match up well against them. It doesn't look like they have much rebounding - their second leading rebounder is a 6-1 guard with 5 per game. Their defense has been good so far, but as I said, they haven't really played any good teams, with the possible exception of Oklahoma. And I have never been particularly impressed with Stanford's coach.

So have hope. Better yet, have faith. And please don't write Cal off vs Stanford. Not just yet.