I feel your pain JS. It's just not aesthetically pleasing.

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

Civil Bear said:

---

I feel your pain JS. It's just not aesthetically pleasing.

---

Very true CB. The world likes round numbers, and zero is as round as it gets.

Hard to make an argument against Randle's scoring ability. As a distributor I saw him as not better than OK.

As for defense, Monty got him to play some by his last year at Cal, but Jerome was hardly better than mediocre at his best.

His defense is the reason why he never made it to the NBA.

bearister said:

---

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

---

I'd be the perfect person to agree with you because I'm a big Bradley fan and I thought Jorge was a bit overrated (anathema, I know). However, I do not agree with you... yet (let's see what Bradley does in his remaining 2 1/2 years).

Jorge was a much better defender and probably a better facilitator. He wasn't a great scorer, but part of their differential in scoring can be explained by the fact that Bradley is playing with a much weaker supporting cast. He all we got.

Jorge was probably one of the weaker POYs in conference history, but he was still POY. Bradley is still looking to make his first all-conference team.

JimSox said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

JimSox said:

---

Lots of end of decade stuff being written these days. I see the Chronicle is running a series on the 10 most memorable moments of the decade in Bay Area sports. But at the risk of reviving an old and by now tedious argument, the decade ain't over 'til the end of next year. One is first, right? Kinda by definition. Therefore 2001 was the first year of the previous decade, making 2010 the last year of that decade. Ten being tenth, and 10 years comprising a decade. That makes 2011 the first year of the current decade and 2020, next year, the last. Okay everyone, you can go back to discussing basketball now.

---

Yes, but there are many references to the '70s, '80s, '90s, as "decades, and in these instances, isn't the first year of the decade also the year with the zero in it? 1970 is the first year of the 1970s, 1980 the first year of the 1980s, and 1990 the first year of the 1990s.

Basketball complicates things, because each season, our games are scheduled for Fall, Winter of one year and, and the same Winter and Spring of the following year. The basketball season of 2009-2010 is what it is called in the record books, but in everyday conversation, the season is usually referred to as the 2010 season.

Based on all this, I'd say the 2009-2010 season is the first year of the 2010s decade, and that basketball decade ended in Spring 2019.

---

Well, just technically speaking, no. The first year of the Common Era was not the year zero. There was no year zero. The first year of the Common Era was the year one. The year before that was the year one Before the Common Era. (Or if you prefer, the year one BC was followed immediately by the year one AD. There was no year zero in between.) So, follow along now, since One was the first year, 10 was the 10th year and the end of the first decade. Very simple. One is first. Ten is 10th. Also 100 is 100th, the last year of the first century. And 2000 was 2000th, the last year of the second millennium. All this was argued about ad nauseum 20 years ago. Of course my side lost, despite its mathematically indisputable argument, and everybody celebrated the beginning of the new millennium on New Years Eve 1999. A few people noted it 12 months later, but more or less as a cute curiosity. As in hey everyone, the new millennium is actually beginning today, January 1, 2001.
Yet it is still true. The first year of the '70s was 1971, not 1970. Strange but true. 1970 was actually the last year of the '60's. (I told you this was tedious.)
So go ahead and pick your all decade team. But pick it again after the last year of the '10's, 2020. See you next year!

---

That is because the 0 and other Arabic numerals did not make it to Europe until the year 1200 (or MCC as it was known then).

calumnus said:

---

JimSox said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

JimSox said:

---

Lots of end of decade stuff being written these days. I see the Chronicle is running a series on the 10 most memorable moments of the decade in Bay Area sports. But at the risk of reviving an old and by now tedious argument, the decade ain't over 'til the end of next year. One is first, right? Kinda by definition. Therefore 2001 was the first year of the previous decade, making 2010 the last year of that decade. Ten being tenth, and 10 years comprising a decade. That makes 2011 the first year of the current decade and 2020, next year, the last. Okay everyone, you can go back to discussing basketball now.

---

Yes, but there are many references to the '70s, '80s, '90s, as "decades, and in these instances, isn't the first year of the decade also the year with the zero in it? 1970 is the first year of the 1970s, 1980 the first year of the 1980s, and 1990 the first year of the 1990s.

Basketball complicates things, because each season, our games are scheduled for Fall, Winter of one year and, and the same Winter and Spring of the following year. The basketball season of 2009-2010 is what it is called in the record books, but in everyday conversation, the season is usually referred to as the 2010 season.

Based on all this, I'd say the 2009-2010 season is the first year of the 2010s decade, and that basketball decade ended in Spring 2019.

---

Well, just technically speaking, no. The first year of the Common Era was not the year zero. There was no year zero. The first year of the Common Era was the year one. The year before that was the year one Before the Common Era. (Or if you prefer, the year one BC was followed immediately by the year one AD. There was no year zero in between.) So, follow along now, since One was the first year, 10 was the 10th year and the end of the first decade. Very simple. One is first. Ten is 10th. Also 100 is 100th, the last year of the first century. And 2000 was 2000th, the last year of the second millennium. All this was argued about ad nauseum 20 years ago. Of course my side lost, despite its mathematically indisputable argument, and everybody celebrated the beginning of the new millennium on New Years Eve 1999. A few people noted it 12 months later, but more or less as a cute curiosity. As in hey everyone, the new millennium is actually beginning today, January 1, 2001.
Yet it is still true. The first year of the '70s was 1971, not 1970. Strange but true. 1970 was actually the last year of the '60's. (I told you this was tedious.)
So go ahead and pick your all decade team. But pick it again after the last year of the '10's, 2020. See you next year!

---

That is because the 0 and other Arabic numerals did not make it to Europe until the year 1200 (or MCC as it was known then).

---

Interesting. But I don't know what that has to do with it. I still maintain that one is first and 10 is 10th. However, a decade by definition can be ANY 10 year period. So it could be from 2005 through 2014, that's a decade. Or you could say that Cal wins the Big Game for the first time in a decade. So you could pick and nitpick over the best team of this particular decade ending in 2019, as you could for a decade ending in any year. Here's a definition from an online dictionary:

noun
noun: decade; plural noun: decades
[ol]

1.
a period of ten years.
"he taught at the university for nearly a decade"

• a period of ten years beginning with a year ending in 0 (or, by another reckoning, 1).
  "the fourth decade of the nineteenth century"

[/ol]I guess I'm in the "another reckoning" camp! 'Nuf said.

JimSox said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JimSox said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

JimSox said:

---

Lots of end of decade stuff being written these days. I see the Chronicle is running a series on the 10 most memorable moments of the decade in Bay Area sports. But at the risk of reviving an old and by now tedious argument, the decade ain't over 'til the end of next year. One is first, right? Kinda by definition. Therefore 2001 was the first year of the previous decade, making 2010 the last year of that decade. Ten being tenth, and 10 years comprising a decade. That makes 2011 the first year of the current decade and 2020, next year, the last. Okay everyone, you can go back to discussing basketball now.

---

Yes, but there are many references to the '70s, '80s, '90s, as "decades, and in these instances, isn't the first year of the decade also the year with the zero in it? 1970 is the first year of the 1970s, 1980 the first year of the 1980s, and 1990 the first year of the 1990s.

Basketball complicates things, because each season, our games are scheduled for Fall, Winter of one year and, and the same Winter and Spring of the following year. The basketball season of 2009-2010 is what it is called in the record books, but in everyday conversation, the season is usually referred to as the 2010 season.

Based on all this, I'd say the 2009-2010 season is the first year of the 2010s decade, and that basketball decade ended in Spring 2019.

---

Well, just technically speaking, no. The first year of the Common Era was not the year zero. There was no year zero. The first year of the Common Era was the year one. The year before that was the year one Before the Common Era. (Or if you prefer, the year one BC was followed immediately by the year one AD. There was no year zero in between.) So, follow along now, since One was the first year, 10 was the 10th year and the end of the first decade. Very simple. One is first. Ten is 10th. Also 100 is 100th, the last year of the first century. And 2000 was 2000th, the last year of the second millennium. All this was argued about ad nauseum 20 years ago. Of course my side lost, despite its mathematically indisputable argument, and everybody celebrated the beginning of the new millennium on New Years Eve 1999. A few people noted it 12 months later, but more or less as a cute curiosity. As in hey everyone, the new millennium is actually beginning today, January 1, 2001.
Yet it is still true. The first year of the '70s was 1971, not 1970. Strange but true. 1970 was actually the last year of the '60's. (I told you this was tedious.)
So go ahead and pick your all decade team. But pick it again after the last year of the '10's, 2020. See you next year!

---

That is because the 0 and other Arabic numerals did not make it to Europe until the year 1200 (or MCC as it was known then).

---

Interesting. But I don't know what that has to do with it. I still maintain that one is first and 10 is 10th. However, a decade by definition can be ANY 10 year period. So it could be from 2005 through 2014, that's a decade. Or you could say that Cal wins the Big Game for the first time in a decade. So you could pick and nitpick over the best team of this particular decade ending in 2019, as you could for a decade ending in any year. Here's a definition from an online dictionary:

noun
noun: decade; plural noun: decades
[ol]

1.
a period of ten years.
"he taught at the university for nearly a decade"

• a period of ten years beginning with a year ending in 0 (or, by another reckoning, 1).
  "the fourth decade of the nineteenth century"

[/ol]I guess I'm in the "another reckoning" camp! 'Nuf said.

---

It is background as to why there is no year zero. The AD/BC designation was developed in the year AD DXXXIIII (AD 533), 667 years before the zero and Arabic numbers were introduced to Europe. Roman numerals have no zero.

I agree any 10 year period can be a decade. However, I don't think it makes sense to have 11 basketball seasons in a decade. It should be 10.

JimSox said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

I feel your pain JS. It's just not aesthetically pleasing.

---

Very true CB. The world likes round numbers, and zero is as round as it gets.

---

I think it has more to do with wanting to recognize 1970 as part of the 70's, not the 60's.

The 25+ Best California Golden Bears Basketball Players Of All Time


https://www.ranker.com/list/best-california-golden-bears-basketball-players/ranker-ncaa-basketball
https://m.ranker.com/list/best-california-golden-bears-basketball-players/ranker-ncaa-basketball

Big C said:

---

...However, I do not agree with you... yet (let's see what Bradley does in his remaining 2 1/2 years)...

---

Matt is basically a heavyweight boxing champion with elite basketball skills. 3 bitcoin that he ain't regressing over the next 2 1/2 years. He is on a rocket headed up. Merry Christmas!*


*I was actually surprised during the BC game that Braun proclaimed Matt a future NBA player which exceeds my scouting analysis. I figure Braun has forgotten more about basketball than I know so I'll go with his opinion.

>"...The 25+ Best California Golden Bears Basketball Players Of All Time..."<

No Amit Tamir?
No Sam Potter?

joe amos yaks said:

---

>"...The 25+ Best California Golden Bears Basketball Players Of All Time..."<

No Amit Tamir?
No Sam Potter?

---

FWIW: right now Amit is sitting at #41...

Max Zhang is #43 so I guess that's fair

https://www.ranker.com/list/best-california-golden-bears-basketball-players/ranker-ncaa-basketball

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

JimSox said:

---

Lots of end of decade stuff being written these days. I see the Chronicle is running a series on the 10 most memorable moments of the decade in Bay Area sports. But at the risk of reviving an old and by now tedious argument, the decade ain't over 'til the end of next year. One is first, right? Kinda by definition. Therefore 2001 was the first year of the previous decade, making 2010 the last year of that decade. Ten being tenth, and 10 years comprising a decade. That makes 2011 the first year of the current decade and 2020, next year, the last. Okay everyone, you can go back to discussing basketball now.

---

Yes, but there are many references to the '70s, '80s, '90s, as "decades, and in these instances, isn't the first year of the decade also the year with the zero in it? 1970 is the first year of the 1970s, 1980 the first year of the 1980s, and 1990 the first year of the 1990s.

Basketball complicates things, because each season, our games are scheduled for Fall, Winter of one year and, and the same Winter and Spring of the following year. The basketball season of 2009-2010 is what it is called in the record books, but in everyday conversation, the season is usually referred to as the 2010 season.

Based on all this, I'd say the 2009-2010 season is the first year of the 2010s decade, and that basketball decade ended in Spring 2019.

---

If you include 09-10 as the first year of the decade then you cannot include 19-20 or you would have 11 seasons per decade.

---

Exactly right. I don't think the current season should be included. It is the first year of the 2020s or '20s. IMO

You could also define eligibility as having played in a game between 2010 Jan 01 and 2019 Dec 31. That includes 11 seasons but only 10 years in 1 decade.

bearister said:

---

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

---

I'll tell you what.

If in Bradley's last home game as a senior, the whole arena breaks into a chant in appreciation for him, I'll consider the possibility that Bradley is better. Until that time comes, he's my #1 guy.

bearister said:

---

Big C said:

---

...However, I do not agree with you... yet (let's see what Bradley does in his remaining 2 1/2 years)...

---

Matt is basically a heavyweight boxing champion with elite basketball skills. 3 bitcoin that he ain't regressing over the next 2 1/2 years. He is on a rocket headed up. Merry Christmas!*


*I was actually surprised during the BC game that Braun proclaimed Matt a future NBA player which exceeds my scouting analysis. I figure Braun has forgotten more about basketball than I know so I'll go with his opinion.

---

Hey, I love Bradley, but the just-under-20-ppg that he's scoring this season are for a very untalented team. Yes, he is good now, will continue to get better and end up with a lot of accolades.

Can't put him on any sort of all-decade team for the PAST ten years, but when we're making this list again in 2029...

Guys on TV like Braun like to heap on the praise, which is fine.

Joker said:

---

bearister said:

---

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

---

I'll tell you what.

If in Bradley's last home game as a senior, the whole arena breaks into a chant in appreciation for him, I'll consider the possibility that Bradley is better. Until that time comes, he's my #1 guy.

---

Bradley is a good player on a not very good team and I don't think that is going to change dramatically the next two years. That being the case he may benefit from the Pete Maravich effect ( scorer on a bad team). If Pete can average 44 PPG then it is within the realm of possibility that Matt can average a couple of whiskers over 20 PPG for his career average and unseat Don MacLean for the All Time League Scoring Record. In that event you are going to get catapulted down two rows when during the standing ovation on Senior Night the guys sitting in back of you bump you.*

*Matt will be competing with CJ Elleby for the record but odds are Elleby leaves the Cougars after his 3rd season.



P.S. Jorge should have fouled out of numerous games due to over aggression but he benefitted from home cooking officiating at Haas. His relatively low scoring average was do to horrific shot selection. Nonetheless, he was a great Golden Bear that always gave maximum effort, never mailing it in ......ever....and clearly the first guy that comes to mind when you think lock down defender.

bearister said:

---

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

---

I wouldn't say either is the better player right now, especially since Bradley is only a year and few games into his career, and Jorge had 4 years to show his stuff. Bradley looks to be the superior offensive player, Jorge the superior defensive player. In the last couple of decades or so, with a number of rule changes or lax enforcement of some rules, the game has become about 60% offense and 40% defense, to pick some numbers. In the 1950s. the game had become maybe 60% defense and 40% offense. So it helps Bradley's case because today his game is more offense than defense.

But Jorge could come into a game and take it over, just with defense. He could change the pace that the other team played into something that could be handled by Cal's less talented athletes. Individually, with no help, he could shut down the opponent's best player. Anyone remember Cal's game against Weber State, a 25-7 team in 2012? They had Damian Lillard, who was averaging 25 pts, 4 assists, and 5 rebounds. Jorge held him to 14 points, 3 assists, and 3 rebounds. His average 2PT FG% was ..517, and Jorge held him to 1/7 two-pointers. His average 3PT% was .409, and Jorge held him to 3/10 three pointers. Not only that but Jorge upped his offensive game, scoring 24 points, 3 assists and 5 rebounds. He completely dominated Lillard, who the next season would become NBA Rookie of the Year, a 4 time NBA All-Star, and 4 time All-NBA, and he made Lillard a non-factor, as Cal blew out Weber State by 20 points. I can't think of a Cal player who dominated a very talented opponent so completely. Maybe some of you can.

Matt Bradley is in his sophomore year, and not yet at a level where he can completely dominate a great player like Lillard, or take over a game with his play, like Jorge could. I'm looking forward to seeing how he plays against better opponents in the PAC12. I expect him to become a much better defender, and a better offensive player under Fox, and I expect him to become at least as good or better player than Jorge before he becomes a senior. I hope he is still with us for that year.

I'll take Lillard. You get Jorge.

bearister said:

---

I'll take Lillard. You get Jorge.

---

I can respect that.

bearister said:

---

I'll take Lillard. You get Jorge.

---

And if we need to guard Lillard, I'll take Jorge and you can have Bradley.

Comparing offensive stats of a defensive player who played on teams with other offensive weapons to those of an offensive player who is the only offensive weapon on his team is questionable. I have to agree with SF here that Jorge could change games in a way Bradley just hasn't to date, though he might do so later in his career.

bearister said:

---

Joker said:

---

bearister said:

---

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

---

I'll tell you what.

If in Bradley's last home game as a senior, the whole arena breaks into a chant in appreciation for him, I'll consider the possibility that Bradley is better. Until that time comes, he's my #1 guy.

---

Bradley is a good player on a not very good team and I don't think that is going to change dramatically the next two years. That being the case he may benefit from the Pete Maravich effect ( scorer on a bad team). If Pete can average 44 PPG then it is within the realm of possibility that Matt can average a couple of whiskers over 20 PPG for his career average and unseat Don MacLean for the All Time League Scoring Record. In that event you are going to get catapulted down two rows when during the standing ovation on Senior Night the guys sitting in back of you bump you.*

*Matt will be competing with CJ Elleby for the record but odds are Elleby leaves the Cougars after his 3rd season.



P.S. Jorge should have fouled out of numerous games due to over aggression but he benefitted from home cooking officiating at Haas. His relatively low scoring average was do to horrific shot selection. Nonetheless, he was a great Golden Bear that always gave maximum effort, never mailing it in ......ever....and clearly the first guy that comes to mind when you think lock down defender.

---

Bearister,

I am amazed by what I see as your distortion of Jorge's game. He was a superb passer. I do not remember any "horrific" shot selection that you cite. "Home cooking" by officials at Haas? I saw every game Jorge played at home and never saw it.

I would add to SFCB's reminder of Jorge's great defensive game against Lillard the amazing turnaround played at Haas, when ASU had Harden, who began the game by scoring over and over again at will against Patrick Christopher. Monty then substituted freshman Jorge for Patrick and was given the task of guarding Harden. Immediately Jorge, as was his habit, got right up in Harden's grill, filling the safe space around Harden that he expected. He looked down quizzically and angrily at Jorge, essentially indicating his annoyance and disdain that this smaller nobody, not even a Cal starter, would dare to invade his space. He went on to try to show that he would make Jorge pay for his insolence. Though he did score some more points, he missed many shots that he forced because of Jorge's effective defense and the Bears went from being quite far behind in the score to winning the game.

This game was one of the best I have seen where one man, through his grit and absence of fear turned around the game that the starters were losing.

There were others, like the impact he caused when the Bears came from behind to beat Stanford, largely because of Jorge's play and spirit that was so contagious when he came off the bench.

These instances were just in his first year!

Jorge is the only player ever, so far as I remember, to be named overall Player of the Year in the conference and at the same time the Defensive Player of the Year. To top all that off, he was also named to the all academic conference team.

As I saw him, he was the hardest working player I have ever seen on a Cal basketball team. His relentless play all over the court has never been matched by a Cal player in the 40+ years I have been watching the Bears.

Clearly Jason was in a league by himself and nobody can argue that Jorge was in his league as a player. I would argue, however, that Jason in his younger days was not in Jorge's league as a young man.

I love the guy!

south bender said:

---

bearister said:

---

Joker said:

---

bearister said:

---

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

---

I'll tell you what.

If in Bradley's last home game as a senior, the whole arena breaks into a chant in appreciation for him, I'll consider the possibility that Bradley is better. Until that time comes, he's my #1 guy.

---

Bradley is a good player on a not very good team and I don't think that is going to change dramatically the next two years. That being the case he may benefit from the Pete Maravich effect ( scorer on a bad team). If Pete can average 44 PPG then it is within the realm of possibility that Matt can average a couple of whiskers over 20 PPG for his career average and unseat Don MacLean for the All Time League Scoring Record. In that event you are going to get catapulted down two rows when during the standing ovation on Senior Night the guys sitting in back of you bump you.*

*Matt will be competing with CJ Elleby for the record but odds are Elleby leaves the Cougars after his 3rd season.



P.S. Jorge should have fouled out of numerous games due to over aggression but he benefitted from home cooking officiating at Haas. His relatively low scoring average was do to horrific shot selection. Nonetheless, he was a great Golden Bear that always gave maximum effort, never mailing it in ......ever....and clearly the first guy that comes to mind when you think lock down defender.

---

Bearister,

I am amazed by what I see as your distortion of Jorge's game. He was a superb passer. I do not remember any "horrific" shot selection that you cite. "Home cooking" by officials at Haas? I saw every game Jorge played at home and never saw it.

I would add to SFCB's reminder of Jorge's great defensive game against Lillard the amazing turnaround played at Haas, when ASU had Harden, who began the game by scoring over and over again at will against Patrick Christopher. Monty then substituted freshman Jorge for Patrick and was given the task of guarding Harden. Immediately Jorge, as was his habit, got right up in Harden's grill, filling the safe space around Harden that he expected. He looked down quizzically and angrily at Jorge, essentially indicating his annoyance and disdain that this smaller nobody, not even a Cal starter, would dare to invade his space. He went on to try to show that he would make Jorge pay for his insolence. Though he did score some more points, he missed many shots that he forced because of Jorge's effective defense and the Bears went from being quite far behind in the score to winning the game.

This game was one of the best I have seen where one man, through his grit and absence of fear turned around the game that the starters were losing.

There were others, like the impact he caused when the Bears came from behind to beat Stanford, largely because of Jorge's play and spirit that was so contagious when he came off the bench.

These instances were just in his first year!

Jorge is the only player ever, so far as I remember, to be named overall Player of the Year in the conference and at the same time the Defensive Player of the Year. To top all that off, he was also named to the all academic conference team.

As I saw him, he was the hardest working player I have ever seen on a Cal basketball team. His relentless play all over the court has never been matched by a Cal player in the 40+ years I have been watching the Bears.

Clearly Jason was in a league by himself and nobody can argue that Jorge was in his league as a player. I would argue, however, that Jason in his younger days was not in Jorge's league as a young man.

I love the guy!

---

Yeah, I don't remember any of the conference player winning overall MVP and Defensive MVP in the same season

Jorge remains my fav Cal basketball player of all time

A little reminder of his game:

Joker said:

---

bearister said:

---

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

---

I'll tell you what.

If in Bradley's last home game as a senior, the whole arena breaks into a chant in appreciation for him, I'll consider the possibility that Bradley is better. Until that time comes, he's my #1 guy.

---

won't happen, you see many of these guys haven't been to a game

HoopDreams said:

---

south bender said:

---

bearister said:

---

Joker said:

---

bearister said:

---

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

---

I'll tell you what.

If in Bradley's last home game as a senior, the whole arena breaks into a chant in appreciation for him, I'll consider the possibility that Bradley is better. Until that time comes, he's my #1 guy.

---

Bradley is a good player on a not very good team and I don't think that is going to change dramatically the next two years. That being the case he may benefit from the Pete Maravich effect ( scorer on a bad team). If Pete can average 44 PPG then it is within the realm of possibility that Matt can average a couple of whiskers over 20 PPG for his career average and unseat Don MacLean for the All Time League Scoring Record. In that event you are going to get catapulted down two rows when during the standing ovation on Senior Night the guys sitting in back of you bump you.*

*Matt will be competing with CJ Elleby for the record but odds are Elleby leaves the Cougars after his 3rd season.



P.S. Jorge should have fouled out of numerous games due to over aggression but he benefitted from home cooking officiating at Haas. His relatively low scoring average was do to horrific shot selection. Nonetheless, he was a great Golden Bear that always gave maximum effort, never mailing it in ......ever....and clearly the first guy that comes to mind when you think lock down defender.

---

Bearister,

I am amazed by what I see as your distortion of Jorge's game. He was a superb passer. I do not remember any "horrific" shot selection that you cite. "Home cooking" by officials at Haas? I saw every game Jorge played at home and never saw it.

I would add to SFCB's reminder of Jorge's great defensive game against Lillard the amazing turnaround played at Haas, when ASU had Harden, who began the game by scoring over and over again at will against Patrick Christopher. Monty then substituted freshman Jorge for Patrick and was given the task of guarding Harden. Immediately Jorge, as was his habit, got right up in Harden's grill, filling the safe space around Harden that he expected. He looked down quizzically and angrily at Jorge, essentially indicating his annoyance and disdain that this smaller nobody, not even a Cal starter, would dare to invade his space. He went on to try to show that he would make Jorge pay for his insolence. Though he did score some more points, he missed many shots that he forced because of Jorge's effective defense and the Bears went from being quite far behind in the score to winning the game.

This game was one of the best I have seen where one man, through his grit and absence of fear turned around the game that the starters were losing.

There were others, like the impact he caused when the Bears came from behind to beat Stanford, largely because of Jorge's play and spirit that was so contagious when he came off the bench.

These instances were just in his first year!

Jorge is the only player ever, so far as I remember, to be named overall Player of the Year in the conference and at the same time the Defensive Player of the Year. To top all that off, he was also named to the all academic conference team.

As I saw him, he was the hardest working player I have ever seen on a Cal basketball team. His relentless play all over the court has never been matched by a Cal player in the 40+ years I have been watching the Bears.

Clearly Jason was in a league by himself and nobody can argue that Jorge was in his league as a player. I would argue, however, that Jason in his younger days was not in Jorge's league as a young man.

I love the guy!

---

Yeah, I don't remember any of the conference player winning overall MVP and Defensive MVP in the same season

Jorge remains my fav Cal basketball player of all time

A little reminder of his game:

---

Thanks, HD,

I loved seeing that game again!

Thanks HD,

Jorge = Life-Force

I've loved that Markhuri Sanders-Frison was also featured. He wasn't at CAL very long and was a tad
foul-prone, but high-screen or low-post...the opposition knew he was THERE.

bearup said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

>"...The 25+ Best California Golden Bears Basketball Players Of All Time..."<

No Amit Tamir?
No Sam Potter?

---

FWIW: right now Amit is sitting at #41...

Max Zhang is #43 so I guess that's fair

https://www.ranker.com/list/best-california-golden-bears-basketball-players/ranker-ncaa-basketball

---

Brian Hendrick and Joe Shipp are not on this list at all. They should be.

bearup said:

---

Defensively he was not there.


Thanks HD,

Jorge = Life-Force

I've loved that Markhuri Sanders-Frison was also featured. He wasn't at CAL very long and was a tad
foul-prone, but high-screen or low-post...the opposition knew he was THERE.

---

bearister said:

---

I need an essay explaining how Jorge is a better basketball player than Matt Bradley. Jorge's career scoring average was 9.6 PPG, Bradley will end up just south of 20 PPG. No attributes of Jorge that you consider superior to those of Bradley makes up for that gap.

---

way better hair? I'll leave the essays to SFCity and others. Maybe it's because I disconnected from hoops after decades of loyalty during the Cuonzo era (I withstood that) and more so the Wyking mess, but I trust your judgement and I'll need to take another look at Bradley.. Frankly, I couldn't watch anymore because it was unwatchable. Maybe there needs to be an "all warrior" team.

dimitrig said:

---

bearup said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

>"...The 25+ Best California Golden Bears Basketball Players Of All Time..."<

No Amit Tamir?
No Sam Potter?

---

FWIW: right now Amit is sitting at #41...

Max Zhang is #43 so I guess that's fair

https://www.ranker.com/list/best-california-golden-bears-basketball-players/ranker-ncaa-basketball

---

Brian Hendrick and Joe Shipp are not on this list at all. They should be.

---

And Leonard Taylor. Having Max and Domingo on the list does not make for a serious list.