Over on some blog there is a "see the trees but not the forest" post about how bad our 2 point shooting in (lots of math and "rankings") and how we need to be putting up more threes. Since the author can "do math" we get treated to that analysis that essentially concludes Fox is an idiot, that all we need is to understand that and make a change and then, this team woudl put up 90 a night and all would be right with the world.

God I hate that kind of Cal analysis.

Repeat after me. We do NOT have Pac-12 caliber talent? Did you. If not, say it again.

This isn't to excuse Fox. There are somethings (like not having more Kelly, less Lars and getting more minutes for KK) that I could quibble about. I am worried that even as a newcoming our early class is what it is - and that we really will need to kill it in the Spring period to have a shot at not regressing. But this, IMHO, is about TALENT - recognizing for example that South might be a nice kid but that there are probably close to 20 wings in the conference that are better or that we really DONT have a Pac-12 Power forward while most other programs do.

PS. Sometimes this is about "attacking the players." It is not. I think all of them have worked incredibly hard and it looks like they are doing their number 1 job - getting their degree. It is, rather, to say that they are on a certain place on the talent spectrum and that to compete in the Pac 12 we will need upgrades.

PPS. And that isn't new for me. Long time readers will know I was deeply frustrated by Monty's inability to get what I thought would be the kind of talent he was able to attract to the Farm.

I agree with this, and while I was in the camp that one win in conference was a good bet we have beat expectations but.....
While I have been a Fox supporter and still am, a couple of things strategically have bothered me.
Realizing we have only two players who have shown they can put the ball in the hoop. We know that the pressure on Bradley, or an off night ( OSU game) leaves us with NO threat. However I have watched so many possessions where we give up open shots or run the clock down for a poorer shot. I recognize the attempt to play the time of possession game and to slow the game down, but I don't recall South or Austin or Brown taking more than one shot beyond 18ft. You can't win at any level with so little from your guards, who pass up shots to drive into the tall grass and get stuffed.
Is this what he has instructed his team to run, or is it just these three have little or no confidence in their shot??
How do you get better? Austin is gone and South I also believe is gone. That leaves Brown who is like so many small quick guards with no shot, who is at best a nice third guard on a decent team.
Cal was so easy to defend, and without talent the results where enevable. His defensive strategy looks solid, but offensively...????
So what is Fox's philosophy going forward ??

Bisonbob said:

---

I agree with this, and while I was in the camp that one win in conference was a good bet we have beat expectations but.....
While I have been a Fox supporter and still am, a couple of things strategically have bothered me.
Realizing we have only two players who have shown they can put the ball in the hoop. We know that the pressure on Bradley, or an off night ( OSU game) leaves us with NO threat. However I have watched so many possessions where we give up open shots or run the clock down for a poorer shot. I recognize the attempt to play the time of possession game and to slow the game down, but I don't recall South or Austin or Brown taking more than one shot beyond 18ft. You can't win at any level with so little from your guards, who pass up shots to drive into the tall grass and get stuffed.
Is this what he has instructed his team to run, or is it just these three have little or no confidence in their shot??
How do you get better? Austin is gone and South I also believe is gone. That leaves Brown who is like so many small quick guards with no shot, who is at best a nice third guard on a decent team.
Cal was so easy to defend, and without talent the results where enevable. His defensive strategy looks solid, but offensively...????
So what is Fox's philosophy going forward ??

---

He has to recruit. I don't think there is any other magic to it.

Grant is a nice kid but unless he works at 4000 shots this summer getting quicker on his release he will always be relatively easy to defend - sag a step and a half off and then close FAST if he is going to shoot. 90% of the time he pulls it down.

Obviously Lars and Kelly are not going to be consistent long range threats. Doubt Thorpe either.

KK is a BIT of a wildcard. Who knows. I wouldn't THINK he can develop into that role but he can defend, is tall, shoots squared up and ball seems to leave his hand well. Just such a limited sample size to say for sure. His minutes are, however, likely to go up next year.

And yes, Paris and SOuth are both gone. So you would think priorities are PG and Wing who can shoot.

Bisonbob said:

---

I agree with this, and while I was in the camp that one win in conference was a good bet we have beat expectations but.....
While I have been a Fox supporter and still am, a couple of things strategically have bothered me.
Realizing we have only two players who have shown they can put the ball in the hoop. We know that the pressure on Bradley, or an off night ( OSU game) leaves us with NO threat. However I have watched so many possessions where we give up open shots or run the clock down for a poorer shot. I recognize the attempt to play the time of possession game and to slow the game down, but I don't recall South or Austin or Brown taking more than one shot beyond 18ft. You can't win at any level with so little from your guards, who pass up shots to drive into the tall grass and get stuffed.
Is this what he has instructed his team to run, or is it just these three have little or no confidence in their shot??
How do you get better? Austin is gone and South I also believe is gone. That leaves Brown who is like so many small quick guards with no shot, who is at best a nice third guard on a decent team.
Cal was so easy to defend, and without talent the results where enevable. His defensive strategy looks solid, but offensively...????
So what is Fox's philosophy going forward ??

---

Giving up open shots. there are open shots and open shots. A 20% 3-point shooter giving up an open 3 is a good idea. Ditto a 10% 3-point shooter. You need shooters to take shots. Just as you need ball handlers to handle the ball.

Also, your memory might be suspect. South is our 2nd most prolific 3-point shooter (not necessarily maker, he's only 30%). And I don't want Austin taking 3's, given his 21% average.

Kyany is a good shooter, is tall and can handle the ball a little bit. He will be really good next year. We are seeing more of him lately. I hope he plays a-lot on Wednesday. I think he is a better three shooter than south.

socaltownie said:

---

Over on some blog there is a "see the trees but not the forest" post about how bad our 2 point shooting in (lots of math and "rankings") and how we need to be putting up more threes. Since the author can "do math" we get treated to that analysis that essentially concludes Fox is an idiot, that all we need is to understand that and make a change and then, this team woudl put up 90 a night and all would be right with the world.

God I hate that kind of Cal analysis.

Repeat after me. We do NOT have Pac-12 caliber talent? Did you. If not, say it again.

This isn't to excuse Fox. There are somethings (like not having more Kelly, less Lars and getting more minutes for KK) that I could quibble about. I am worried that even as a newcoming our early class is what it is - and that we really will need to kill it in the Spring period to have a shot at not regressing. But this, IMHO, is about TALENT - recognizing for example that South might be a nice kid but that there are probably close to 20 wings in the conference that are better or that we really DONT have a Pac-12 Power forward while most other programs do.

PS. Sometimes this is about "attacking the players." It is not. I think all of them have worked incredibly hard and it looks like they are doing their number 1 job - getting their degree. It is, rather, to say that they are on a certain place on the talent spectrum and that to compete in the Pac 12 we will need upgrades.

PPS. And that isn't new for me. Long time readers will know I was deeply frustrated by Monty's inability to get what I thought would be the kind of talent he was able to attract to the Farm.

---

We have some Pac-12 caliber players but that's a different issue to a degree than what the blogger was saying. On his "point" we have only one fairly good three point shooter (Bradley) and another (Grant) who was above average for the year but only at 28% in conference. For different reasons, it's a struggle to get either of them wide open shots. Austin shot 22% from three this year. Should a 22% shooter take more threes? I don't think so. In conference South shot 24%. No one other than Matt took a significant number of threes in conference and made 30%.

Whoever wrote that is a member of the "I pretend to understand analytics" school of internet basketball analysis. He's advocating becoming even less efficient than we were. That's not too bright.

Agreed. When you don't have players who can shoot ten 3s a game and make a high percentage of them, then you don't tell your players to jack up ten shots a game from behind the arc.

To quote what Steph Curry once said about shooting 3s: If you can't shoot, stop.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Bisonbob said:

---

I agree with this, and while I was in the camp that one win in conference was a good bet we have beat expectations but.....
While I have been a Fox supporter and still am, a couple of things strategically have bothered me.
Realizing we have only two players who have shown they can put the ball in the hoop. We know that the pressure on Bradley, or an off night ( OSU game) leaves us with NO threat. However I have watched so many possessions where we give up open shots or run the clock down for a poorer shot. I recognize the attempt to play the time of possession game and to slow the game down, but I don't recall South or Austin or Brown taking more than one shot beyond 18ft. You can't win at any level with so little from your guards, who pass up shots to drive into the tall grass and get stuffed.
Is this what he has instructed his team to run, or is it just these three have little or no confidence in their shot??
How do you get better? Austin is gone and South I also believe is gone. That leaves Brown who is like so many small quick guards with no shot, who is at best a nice third guard on a decent team.
Cal was so easy to defend, and without talent the results where enevable. His defensive strategy looks solid, but offensively...????
So what is Fox's philosophy going forward ??

---

Giving up open shots. there are open shots and open shots. A 20% 3-point shooter giving up an open 3 is a good idea. Ditto a 10% 3-point shooter. You need shooters to take shots. Just as you need ball handlers to handle the ball.

Also, your memory might be suspect. South is our 2nd most prolific 3-point shooter (not necessarily maker, he's only 30%). And I don't want Austin taking 3's, given his 21% average.

---

South's shooting has been a little puzzling. Here are some numbers (not analytical, just plain old shooting percentages) for Mr. South:

2017: 46% (twos), 36%(threes), 78% (FTs)
2018: 46% (twos), 37%(threes), 86% (FTs)
2019: 44% (twos), 37%(threes), 83% (FTs)
2020: 38% (twos), 30%(threes), 85% (FTs)

I expected some dropoff from his years of playing in a weaker conference, but not this much. This year has been the worst of his college career by far, but not the whole year as these numbers show:

2020 preconference season: 44% (twos), 40% (threes)
2020 PAC12 season: 32% (twos), 24% (threes)

and then there is this:

2020 PAC12 road games: 23% (twos), 23% (threes)

So South came to Cal and had a pre-season that seemed similar shooting the ball to what he had done in Texas, and he actually shot threes at a better percentage than he ever had in Texas. But from the start, the PAC12 conference hit him like a brick wall. Obviously the defenders in the PAC12 are better quality and more athletic, and the PAC 12 coaching is probably better at scheming how to stop shooters. Cal had one dependable three point shooter, Bradley, as Anticevich was good, but not consistent game to game. If a team could stop South, that would limit Cal's three point scoring.

I think it is more than just playing against better defenders which caused South's shooting dropoff. I wondered if he might have been playing with a small injury. Mark Fox is very guarded, even secretive, about discussing the health of his players. Another factor might be that South is playing on a bigger stage now, and the pressure is greater. He seemed to exhibit the symptoms of a slump. Once a lesser player starts missing shots, he often loses confidence, and starts taking worse shots, shooting airballs, or not asking for the ball, or not working to get open. He shot balls off-line on open shots. And he began missing a lot two point shots as well. 23% on threes is bad, but maybe understandable, but 23% on twos, is pretty rare among starters in a P5 conference. I think he was well defended at first but then he seemed to slump and almost be reluctant to shoot even an open shot. I hope it is a slump and he can shake it and score some buckets in our next game and beyond if we do win it.

Kuany is a good three shooter but he is usually wide open. Also good foul shooter. Next year we will see what he can do

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Bisonbob said:

---

I agree with this, and while I was in the camp that one win in conference was a good bet we have beat expectations but.....
While I have been a Fox supporter and still am, a couple of things strategically have bothered me.
Realizing we have only two players who have shown they can put the ball in the hoop. We know that the pressure on Bradley, or an off night ( OSU game) leaves us with NO threat. However I have watched so many possessions where we give up open shots or run the clock down for a poorer shot. I recognize the attempt to play the time of possession game and to slow the game down, but I don't recall South or Austin or Brown taking more than one shot beyond 18ft. You can't win at any level with so little from your guards, who pass up shots to drive into the tall grass and get stuffed.
Is this what he has instructed his team to run, or is it just these three have little or no confidence in their shot??
How do you get better? Austin is gone and South I also believe is gone. That leaves Brown who is like so many small quick guards with no shot, who is at best a nice third guard on a decent team.
Cal was so easy to defend, and without talent the results where enevable. His defensive strategy looks solid, but offensively...????
So what is Fox's philosophy going forward ??

---

Giving up open shots. there are open shots and open shots. A 20% 3-point shooter giving up an open 3 is a good idea. Ditto a 10% 3-point shooter. You need shooters to take shots. Just as you need ball handlers to handle the ball.

Also, your memory might be suspect. South is our 2nd most prolific 3-point shooter (not necessarily maker, he's only 30%). And I don't want Austin taking 3's, given his 21% average.

---

South's shooting has been a little puzzling. Here are some numbers (not analytical, just plain old shooting percentages) for Mr. South:

2017: 46% (twos), 36%(threes), 78% (FTs)
2018: 46% (twos), 37%(threes), 86% (FTs)
2019: 44% (twos), 37%(threes), 83% (FTs)
2020: 38% (twos), 30%(threes), 85% (FTs)

I expected some dropoff from his years of playing in a weaker conference, but not this much. This year has been the worst of his college career by far, but not the whole year as these numbers show:

2020 preconference season: 44% (twos), 40% (threes)
2020 PAC12 season: 32% (twos), 24% (threes)

and then there is this:

2020 PAC12 road games: 23% (twos), 23% (threes)

So South came to Cal and had a pre-season that seemed similar shooting the ball to what he had done in Texas, and he actually shot threes at a better percentage than he ever had in Texas. But from the start, the PAC12 conference hit him like a brick wall. Obviously the defenders in the PAC12 are better quality and more athletic, and the PAC 12 coaching is probably better at scheming how to stop shooters. Cal had one dependable three point shooter, Bradley, as Anticevich was good, but not consistent game to game. If a team could stop South, that would limit Cal's three point scoring.

I think it is more than just playing against better defenders which caused South's shooting dropoff. I wondered if he might have been playing with a small injury. Mark Fox is very guarded, even secretive, about discussing the health of his players. Another factor might be that South is playing on a bigger stage now, and the pressure is greater. He seemed to exhibit the symptoms of a slump. Once a lesser player starts missing shots, he often loses confidence, and starts taking worse shots, shooting airballs, or not asking for the ball, or not working to get open. He shot balls off-line on open shots. And he began missing a lot two point shots as well. 23% on threes is bad, but maybe understandable, but 23% on twos, is pretty rare among starters in a P5 conference. I think he was well defended at first but then he seemed to slump and almost be reluctant to shoot even an open shot. I hope it is a slump and he can shake it and score some buckets in our next game and beyond if we do win it.

---

Could be. He definately has fallen WAY off in conference play. Since I remember him shooting it well in OOC I would guess in Pac12 he was under 25%. That is just awful for a 2 guard who really needed to score.

South has been battling the "yips" on his shot. Once he ran into shooting problems it clearly got in his head and has effected all of his shots. Think Steve Sax.....

Good analysis SF

I do think it was more than better defenders

I think it initially was because of better/longer/quicker defenders in the Pac12, but then he lost confidence (shooting slump).

At some point he started missing open shots, and some badly

Regarding Grant, he was a good 3 ball shooter and especially good mid range shooter but some defenses just sped him up and that caused his shooting to drop

That is why I like pressure defense. Speed players up, make them uncomfortable, force errors

Not saying we should have played this way this year. We don't have the length and athleticism to play that style this year, especially when JHD was out

When he is making shots we have a good chance of winning. Not fond of playing Brown and Austin at the same time. I was hoping the preferred walk in who can shoot would get some time.

If I understand correctly that South was in graduate school, maybe his need to focus on academics hurt his play.

It is likely that his work in graduate school will serve him better than the sport of basketball.

south bender said:

---

It is likely that his work in graduate school will serve him better than the sport of basketball.

---

He better hope so.

#baddabump

Civil Bear said:

---

south bender said:

---

It is likely that his work in graduate school will serve him better than the sport of basketball.

---

He better hope so.

#baddabump

---

CB, you couldn't resist!

How about we appreciate the young man's efforts and wish him well?

An argument for South's problems being in his head is that he is streaky (I'm too lazy to look up game by game stats). Seems that if he shoots well early in a game, he's "on," but if he misses his first couple, he gets in a funk.

south bender said:

---

If I understand correctly that South was in graduate school, maybe his need to focus on academics hurt his play.

It is likely that his work in graduate school will serve him better than the sport of basketball.

---

My understanding is that South wants to go to med school and is here getting his Masters in Public Health. He's a winner!

socaltownie said:

---

Over on some blog there is a "see the trees but not the forest" post about how bad our 2 point shooting in (lots of math and "rankings") and how we need to be putting up more threes. Since the author can "do math" we get treated to that analysis that essentially concludes Fox is an idiot, that all we need is to understand that and make a change and then, this team woudl put up 90 a night and all would be right with the world.

God I hate that kind of Cal analysis.

Repeat after me. We do NOT have Pac-12 caliber talent? Did you. If not, say it again.

This isn't to excuse Fox. There are somethings (like not having more Kelly, less Lars and getting more minutes for KK) that I could quibble about. I am worried that even as a newcoming our early class is what it is - and that we really will need to kill it in the Spring period to have a shot at not regressing. But this, IMHO, is about TALENT - recognizing for example that South might be a nice kid but that there are probably close to 20 wings in the conference that are better or that we really DONT have a Pac-12 Power forward while most other programs do.

PS. Sometimes this is about "attacking the players." It is not. I think all of them have worked incredibly hard and it looks like they are doing their number 1 job - getting their degree. It is, rather, to say that they are on a certain place on the talent spectrum and that to compete in the Pac 12 we will need upgrades.

PPS. And that isn't new for me. Long time readers will know I was deeply frustrated by Monty's inability to get what I thought would be the kind of talent he was able to attract to the Farm.

---

Can you link to the article you're referencing? I'm curious to check it out and am too lazy to Google it now.

socaltownie said:

---

Over on some blog there is a "see the trees but not the forest" post about how bad our 2 point shooting in (lots of math and "rankings") and how we need to be putting up more threes. Since the author can "do math" we get treated to that analysis that essentially concludes Fox is an idiot, that all we need is to understand that and make a change and then, this team woudl put up 90 a night and all would be right with the world.

God I hate that kind of Cal analysis.

Repeat after me. We do NOT have Pac-12 caliber talent? Did you. If not, say it again.

This isn't to excuse Fox. There are somethings (like not having more Kelly, less Lars and getting more minutes for KK) that I could quibble about. I am worried that even as a newcoming our early class is what it is - and that we really will need to kill it in the Spring period to have a shot at not regressing. But this, IMHO, is about TALENT - recognizing for example that South might be a nice kid but that there are probably close to 20 wings in the conference that are better or that we really DONT have a Pac-12 Power forward while most other programs do.

---

I think this refers to a column by Nick Kranz, formerly of cgb, now of writeforcalifornia. IMO, Nick is the best writer about Cal sports. By a mile. I would link but not sure if that is allowed, or if I am even allowed to refer to these other sites.

What you have written is not what what he wrote. It says Cal takes too many inefficient 2s so it should take more 3s. It does not say Cal would be amazing, but that it could be better offensively. It also says Fox's teams have a history of not taking enough 3s. I think these are all at least debatable points. Maybe true, maybe not, but worth considering.

I am still worried that Fox will not have good offenses at Cal even if he gets better players. It is true that Cal had a talent shortage so it is difficult to know what should have happened this year, and 7 wins in conference is a great accomplishment. But I believe the offense could have better. For instance, I think the screening away from the ball was awful, that the screening on the ball was ineffective, and that Grant A. was not properly used.

Sluggo

UrsaMajor said:

---

An argument for South's problems being in his head is that he is streaky (I'm too lazy to look up game by game stats). Seems that if he shoots well early in a game, he's "on," but if he misses his first couple, he gets in a funk.

---

Many three point shooters are streaky. In the shorter college game, they often don't put up more than one or two threes, and is hard to get warmed up and get zeroed in on the basket. Steph Curry might miss his first 3 or 4 attempts but sent make 5 of 6 and end up with a very good night. I also think sometimes that South would miss his first couple of jump shots, and then seemingly be reluctant to shoot. Obviously, he never lost his shooting touch, because he continued to be an excellent foul shooter. I think it was as you say, he got into a funk, during the action part of the game. The great ones often can miss a lot of shots early in a game, but they never stop shooting. I remember a game where Jerry West went something like 1-15 in the first half of a Laker game, and ended up with about 45 points.

I agree. When Fox signed him, I was concerned that coming to the PAC12 would be a big jump for him, but I was very pleased with his play in the pre-conference season at Cal. What I liked was he not only could make threes, but he also had a very dependable jump shot from 10 feet to mid range, and that would add another dimension to the Cal offense, which needed more ways to score. Unfortunately, when he slumped in the PAC12 season, he was missing a lot of two point jump shots as well as threes. Some of the two pointers he made were layups, so if we subtract those from his two point percentage, then he was shooting maybe 25% on twos, which is almost unheard of.

sluggo said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Over on some blog there is a "see the trees but not the forest" post about how bad our 2 point shooting in (lots of math and "rankings") and how we need to be putting up more threes. Since the author can "do math" we get treated to that analysis that essentially concludes Fox is an idiot, that all we need is to understand that and make a change and then, this team woudl put up 90 a night and all would be right with the world.

God I hate that kind of Cal analysis.

Repeat after me. We do NOT have Pac-12 caliber talent? Did you. If not, say it again.

This isn't to excuse Fox. There are somethings (like not having more Kelly, less Lars and getting more minutes for KK) that I could quibble about. I am worried that even as a newcoming our early class is what it is - and that we really will need to kill it in the Spring period to have a shot at not regressing. But this, IMHO, is about TALENT - recognizing for example that South might be a nice kid but that there are probably close to 20 wings in the conference that are better or that we really DONT have a Pac-12 Power forward while most other programs do.

---

I think this refers to a column by Nick Kranz, formerly of cgb, now of writeforcalifornia. IMO, Nick is the best writer about Cal sports. By a mile. I would link but not sure if that is allowed, or if I am even allowed to refer to these other sites.

What you have written is not what what he wrote. It says Cal takes too many inefficient 2s so it should take more 3s. It does not say Cal would be amazing, but that it could be better offensively. It also says Fox's teams have a history of not taking enough 3s. I think these are all at least debatable points. Maybe true, maybe not, but worth considering.

I am still worried that Fox will not have good offenses at Cal even if he gets better players. It is true that Cal had a talent shortage so it is difficult to know what should have happened this year, and 7 wins in conference is a great accomplishment. But I believe the offense could have better. For instance, I think the screening away from the ball was awful, that the screening on the ball was ineffective, and that Grant A. was not properly used.

Sluggo

---

This is about more than numbers. It is about the talent of the players, and the talent of the defenses Cal faced, and of course, the coaching each side gets. You don't automatically take more threes because you are inefficient at making twos. First of all, you have to take shots you are good at making. Who exactly would be taking these threes? Bradley was a great 3-point shooter last season, best in the country early on. This year his three-point shooting was decent, but it had dropped off. Anticevich is a step slow and can't really create a three point shot where there is none, and in several games was not reliable to give you some threes. South was in an awful slump. Austin does not have 3-point range. Brown's threes are a hope and prayer. What is left, Kuany?

As for twos, Bradley prefers going all the way to the rim, and he is usually well contested. South's 2-point jumpers were not dropping even when he was open. He was in a slump. I don't know if Anticevich could be consistent with shorter jumpers, and we did not see many of those. Austin can finish left, but right, not so well. He has a decent two-point jumper. Brown did not show a 2-point jumper, as I remember. Kelly is our most dependable inside scorer. So we don't have many good options inside the three point circle.

And then there are defenses. If you are making a lot of twos, defenders will sag and start defending that. If you can't make your threes, you lose. Or if you are shooting a lot of well defended threes, and not making them, then you must work to get players open for twos. If you can't make those twos, you lose.

So in the end, if we are to depend solely on talent making shots, we just don't have the talent, as SoCalTownie will tell you. What we need is a coach who can teach players how to get open for good shots, to have a better chance of making them. I'm not sure Fox is the guy, because I haven't seen us take a lot of open shots.

SFCityBear said:

---

I agree. When Fox signed him, I was concerned that coming to the PAC12 would be a big jump for him, but I was very pleased with his play in the pre-conference season at Cal. What I liked was he not only could make threes, but he also had a very dependable jump shot from 10 feet to mid range, and that would add another dimension to the Cal offense, which needed more ways to score. Unfortunately, when he slumped in the PAC12 season, he was missing a lot of two point jump shots as well as threes. Some of the two pointers he made were layups, so if we subtract those from his two point percentage, then he was shooting maybe 25% on twos, which is almost unheard of.

---

Regarding South, here are some stats that might be of interest according to Torvik:

First, in his four seasons at Corpus-Christi (which included just four games his freshman season), South played in eight games against top-50 opponents and just two others in the top-100. This year he played in 18 games against top-100 teams, 11 of which were against top-50 teams.

2019 2PT overall: 89-208 (42.8%)
2020 2PT overall: 56-148 (37.8%)

2019 3PT overall: 45-129 (35.2%)
2020 3PT overall: 36-119 (30.3%)

2019 2PT conference only: 68-143 (47.6%)
2020 2PT conference only: 23-78 (29.5%)

2019 3PT conference only: 33-90 (36.7%)
2020 3PT conference only: 18-74 (24.3%)

2019 2PT top-100: 5-17 (29.4%)
2020 2PT top-100: 29-90 (32.2%)

2019 3PT top-100: 4-9 (44.4%)
2020 3PT top-100: 23-73 (31.5%)

2020 2PT top-50 only: 20-55 (36.4%)
2020 3PT top-50 only: 16-52 (30.8%)

A few things to consider when looking at these numbers. First, I think a lot of people (myself included) thought the floor and ceiling of this team could be raised depending on how South's game translated to playing better opponents. And as you can see from all numbers above, that transition wasn't a smooth one.

Another thing to consider is the movement of the three-point line. Averages are down across all of college hoops. Also, South was THE scorer at Corpus-Christi. We have no reason to believe being a secondary scorer instead of a primary one affected his game any, but it could have. There also seemed to be a lot more "settling" for threes this year compared to last year, especially in conference play. My speculation is the increase and athleticism, particularly in the Pac-12 kept him from driving and slashing for two-point shots.

SFCityBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Over on some blog there is a "see the trees but not the forest" post about how bad our 2 point shooting in (lots of math and "rankings") and how we need to be putting up more threes. Since the author can "do math" we get treated to that analysis that essentially concludes Fox is an idiot, that all we need is to understand that and make a change and then, this team woudl put up 90 a night and all would be right with the world.

God I hate that kind of Cal analysis.

Repeat after me. We do NOT have Pac-12 caliber talent? Did you. If not, say it again.

This isn't to excuse Fox. There are somethings (like not having more Kelly, less Lars and getting more minutes for KK) that I could quibble about. I am worried that even as a newcoming our early class is what it is - and that we really will need to kill it in the Spring period to have a shot at not regressing. But this, IMHO, is about TALENT - recognizing for example that South might be a nice kid but that there are probably close to 20 wings in the conference that are better or that we really DONT have a Pac-12 Power forward while most other programs do.

---

I think this refers to a column by Nick Kranz, formerly of cgb, now of writeforcalifornia. IMO, Nick is the best writer about Cal sports. By a mile. I would link but not sure if that is allowed, or if I am even allowed to refer to these other sites.

What you have written is not what what he wrote. It says Cal takes too many inefficient 2s so it should take more 3s. It does not say Cal would be amazing, but that it could be better offensively. It also says Fox's teams have a history of not taking enough 3s. I think these are all at least debatable points. Maybe true, maybe not, but worth considering.

I am still worried that Fox will not have good offenses at Cal even if he gets better players. It is true that Cal had a talent shortage so it is difficult to know what should have happened this year, and 7 wins in conference is a great accomplishment. But I believe the offense could have better. For instance, I think the screening away from the ball was awful, that the screening on the ball was ineffective, and that Grant A. was not properly used.

Sluggo

---

This is about more than numbers. It is about the talent of the players, and the talent of the defenses Cal faced, and of course, the coaching each side gets. You don't automatically take more threes because you are inefficient at making twos. First of all, you have to take shots you are good at making. Who exactly would be taking these threes? Bradley was a great 3-point shooter last season, best in the country early on. This year his three-point shooting was decent, but it had dropped off. Anticevich is a step slow and can't really create a three point shot where there is none, and in several games was not reliable to give you some threes. South was in an awful slump. Austin does not have 3-point range. Brown's threes are a hope and prayer. What is left, Kuany?

As for twos, Bradley prefers going all the way to the rim, and he is usually well contested. South's 2-point jumpers were not dropping even when he was open. He was in a slump. I don't know if Anticevich could be consistent with shorter jumpers, and we did not see many of those. Austin can finish left, but right, not so well. He has a decent two-point jumper. Brown did not show a 2-point jumper, as I remember. Kelly is our most dependable inside scorer. So we don't have many good options inside the three point circle.

And then there are defenses. If you are making a lot of twos, defenders will sag and start defending that. If you can't make your threes, you lose. Or if you are shooting a lot of well defended threes, and not making them, then you must work to get players open for twos. If you can't make those twos, you lose.

So in the end, if we are to depend solely on talent making shots, we just don't have the talent, as SoCalTownie will tell you. What we need is a coach who can teach players how to get open for good shots, to have a better chance of making them. I'm not sure Fox is the guy, because I haven't seen us take a lot of open shots.

---

1. Thanks to sluggo for providing direction where to find the actual article. I couldn't find it on my own

2. I love socal, but having read the article I have to drastically disagree with his interpretation and representation of the article. I recommend people go read it for themselves. I think socal is spot on about talent, but I think he is letting that overwhelm what is an article that makes very good points because basically for him until we have talent nothing else matters. That may be true, but talent doesn't explain the issue the author is addressing.

3. The author is basically making these points

We shoot an extremely low number of 3's
Our three point shooting is average.
We shoot a high number of FAR 2'S. Not 2's. Not short 2's. Not dunks. Not drives. FAR 2's. That is the point of the article. The author is not saying we should stop shooting short 2's or driving or dunking. He is talking about far, jump shot 2's. He specifically says he is not saying run Lars out to the three point line.
We are bad at shooting far 2's. Our rate of shooting these is almost identical to and actually a smidge worse than our rate of shooting 3's.

He didn't say Fox is an idiot. He did say that in his 15 years of coaching his teams have consistently shot a low number of threes no matter what the talent and that it bears watching.

So I think there is a reasonable point here. The point isn't whether we have good three point shooters. The point is whether we should be taking long 2's instead of 3's. It was not an argument to become the Rockets. It was as much an argument to stop taking long 2's. I would say that for a player who is maybe very consistent from 15, but not from 20, great, take the long 2. Our overall shooting percentage does not indicate that. I'd love to get more granular on the individual shooting stats. You can't have the same 2 guys take all of the shots, so sometimes a guy shooting a 15 footer at a 32% clip one time down the floor might open things up for another guy shooting a three another time down the floor.

But when the numbers are this stark, it is a reasonable question on shot selection. Cal is shooting far 2's at 33.7 percent and those shots are accounting for 34.8% of its shots. Cal is shooting 3's at 33.8% or an effective rate of 50.7% and those shots are accounting for 28.4%. This is not numbers nerd level stuff. It is pretty simple math. Yes, if you shoot more 3's your 3point shooting percentage will go down. (but of course if you shoot fewer far 2's, your shooting percentage for that shot should go up. It is not complicated math to say that you should switch out some of those 34.8% of your shots at 2/3 the effective rate to increase the shots that you are only shooting 28.4% of the time. Your 3 point shooting percentage has a long way to drop before it reaches the lack of efficiency of the far twos.

Does that mean shoot more threes and we'll be awesome? No. Does it mean we will be better? Most likely, yes. We'd still be pretty poor. We won't challenge for conference championships. But "without talent it doesn't matter" doesn't work because the last I checked even if you go 0-18 you want to maximize the talent you have.

The other point was the author claimed (without statistics) that this is true for Fox's career. So if we ever do get the talent it will matter.

Frankly, I'm not sure how earth shattering this is or that it is easy to question. Long 2's are generally not smart and should be the exception you use to open up other shots. You step out to the three point line or you get closer. That is a pretty basic tenet of the modern game.

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Over on some blog there is a "see the trees but not the forest" post about how bad our 2 point shooting in (lots of math and "rankings") and how we need to be putting up more threes. Since the author can "do math" we get treated to that analysis that essentially concludes Fox is an idiot, that all we need is to understand that and make a change and then, this team woudl put up 90 a night and all would be right with the world.

God I hate that kind of Cal analysis.

Repeat after me. We do NOT have Pac-12 caliber talent? Did you. If not, say it again.

This isn't to excuse Fox. There are somethings (like not having more Kelly, less Lars and getting more minutes for KK) that I could quibble about. I am worried that even as a newcoming our early class is what it is - and that we really will need to kill it in the Spring period to have a shot at not regressing. But this, IMHO, is about TALENT - recognizing for example that South might be a nice kid but that there are probably close to 20 wings in the conference that are better or that we really DONT have a Pac-12 Power forward while most other programs do.

---

I think this refers to a column by Nick Kranz, formerly of cgb, now of writeforcalifornia. IMO, Nick is the best writer about Cal sports. By a mile. I would link but not sure if that is allowed, or if I am even allowed to refer to these other sites.

What you have written is not what what he wrote. It says Cal takes too many inefficient 2s so it should take more 3s. It does not say Cal would be amazing, but that it could be better offensively. It also says Fox's teams have a history of not taking enough 3s. I think these are all at least debatable points. Maybe true, maybe not, but worth considering.

I am still worried that Fox will not have good offenses at Cal even if he gets better players. It is true that Cal had a talent shortage so it is difficult to know what should have happened this year, and 7 wins in conference is a great accomplishment. But I believe the offense could have better. For instance, I think the screening away from the ball was awful, that the screening on the ball was ineffective, and that Grant A. was not properly used.

Sluggo

---

This is about more than numbers. It is about the talent of the players, and the talent of the defenses Cal faced, and of course, the coaching each side gets. You don't automatically take more threes because you are inefficient at making twos. First of all, you have to take shots you are good at making. Who exactly would be taking these threes? Bradley was a great 3-point shooter last season, best in the country early on. This year his three-point shooting was decent, but it had dropped off. Anticevich is a step slow and can't really create a three point shot where there is none, and in several games was not reliable to give you some threes. South was in an awful slump. Austin does not have 3-point range. Brown's threes are a hope and prayer. What is left, Kuany?

As for twos, Bradley prefers going all the way to the rim, and he is usually well contested. South's 2-point jumpers were not dropping even when he was open. He was in a slump. I don't know if Anticevich could be consistent with shorter jumpers, and we did not see many of those. Austin can finish left, but right, not so well. He has a decent two-point jumper. Brown did not show a 2-point jumper, as I remember. Kelly is our most dependable inside scorer. So we don't have many good options inside the three point circle.

And then there are defenses. If you are making a lot of twos, defenders will sag and start defending that. If you can't make your threes, you lose. Or if you are shooting a lot of well defended threes, and not making them, then you must work to get players open for twos. If you can't make those twos, you lose.

So in the end, if we are to depend solely on talent making shots, we just don't have the talent, as SoCalTownie will tell you. What we need is a coach who can teach players how to get open for good shots, to have a better chance of making them. I'm not sure Fox is the guy, because I haven't seen us take a lot of open shots.

---

1. Thanks to sluggo for providing direction where to find the actual article. I couldn't find it on my own

2. I love socal, but having read the article I have to drastically disagree with his interpretation and representation of the article. I recommend people go read it for themselves. I think socal is spot on about talent, but I think he is letting that overwhelm what is an article that makes very good points because basically for him until we have talent nothing else matters. That may be true, but talent doesn't explain the issue the author is addressing.

3. The author is basically making these points

We shoot an extremely low number of 3's
Our three point shooting is average.
We shoot a high number of FAR 2'S. Not 2's. Not short 2's. Not dunks. Not drives. FAR 2's. That is the point of the article. The author is not saying we should stop shooting short 2's or driving or dunking. He is talking about far, jump shot 2's. He specifically says he is not saying run Lars out to the three point line.
We are bad at shooting far 2's. Our rate of shooting these is almost identical to and actually a smidge worse than our rate of shooting 3's.

He didn't say Fox is an idiot. He did say that in his 15 years of coaching his teams have consistently shot a low number of threes no matter what the talent and that it bears watching.

So I think there is a reasonable point here. The point isn't whether we have good three point shooters. The point is whether we should be taking long 2's instead of 3's. It was not an argument to become the Rockets. It was as much an argument to stop taking long 2's. I would say that for a player who is maybe very consistent from 15, but not from 20, great, take the long 2. Our overall shooting percentage does not indicate that. I'd love to get more granular on the individual shooting stats. You can't have the same 2 guys take all of the shots, so sometimes a guy shooting a 15 footer at a 32% clip one time down the floor might open things up for another guy shooting a three another time down the floor.

But when the numbers are this stark, it is a reasonable question on shot selection. Cal is shooting far 2's at 33.7 percent and those shots are accounting for 34.8% of its shots. Cal is shooting 3's at 33.8% or an effective rate of 50.7% and those shots are accounting for 28.4%. This is not numbers nerd level stuff. It is pretty simple math. Yes, if you shoot more 3's your 3point shooting percentage will go down. (but of course if you shoot fewer far 2's, your shooting percentage for that shot should go up. It is not complicated math to say that you should switch out some of those 34.8% of your shots at 2/3 the effective rate to increase the shots that you are only shooting 28.4% of the time. Your 3 point shooting percentage has a long way to drop before it reaches the lack of efficiency of the far twos.

Does that mean shoot more threes and we'll be awesome? No. Does it mean we will be better? Most likely, yes. We'd still be pretty poor. We won't challenge for conference championships. But "without talent it doesn't matter" doesn't work because the last I checked even if you go 0-18 you want to maximize the talent you have.

The other point was the author claimed (without statistics) that this is true for Fox's career. So if we ever do get the talent it will matter.

Frankly, I'm not sure how earth shattering this is or that it is easy to question. Long 2's are generally not smart and should be the exception you use to open up other shots. You step out to the three point line or you get closer. That is a pretty basic tenet of the modern game.

---

They are consistently running us off the line. With limited options to slash and no great front line finisher they want us to drive. We get scared (rightly) and ergo take long 2s. This is about looking just at Stats and not realize that other teams....you know....game plan against our weaknesses.

socaltownie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Over on some blog there is a "see the trees but not the forest" post about how bad our 2 point shooting in (lots of math and "rankings") and how we need to be putting up more threes. Since the author can "do math" we get treated to that analysis that essentially concludes Fox is an idiot, that all we need is to understand that and make a change and then, this team woudl put up 90 a night and all would be right with the world.

God I hate that kind of Cal analysis.

Repeat after me. We do NOT have Pac-12 caliber talent? Did you. If not, say it again.

This isn't to excuse Fox. There are somethings (like not having more Kelly, less Lars and getting more minutes for KK) that I could quibble about. I am worried that even as a newcoming our early class is what it is - and that we really will need to kill it in the Spring period to have a shot at not regressing. But this, IMHO, is about TALENT - recognizing for example that South might be a nice kid but that there are probably close to 20 wings in the conference that are better or that we really DONT have a Pac-12 Power forward while most other programs do.

---

I think this refers to a column by Nick Kranz, formerly of cgb, now of writeforcalifornia. IMO, Nick is the best writer about Cal sports. By a mile. I would link but not sure if that is allowed, or if I am even allowed to refer to these other sites.

What you have written is not what what he wrote. It says Cal takes too many inefficient 2s so it should take more 3s. It does not say Cal would be amazing, but that it could be better offensively. It also says Fox's teams have a history of not taking enough 3s. I think these are all at least debatable points. Maybe true, maybe not, but worth considering.

I am still worried that Fox will not have good offenses at Cal even if he gets better players. It is true that Cal had a talent shortage so it is difficult to know what should have happened this year, and 7 wins in conference is a great accomplishment. But I believe the offense could have better. For instance, I think the screening away from the ball was awful, that the screening on the ball was ineffective, and that Grant A. was not properly used.

Sluggo

---

This is about more than numbers. It is about the talent of the players, and the talent of the defenses Cal faced, and of course, the coaching each side gets. You don't automatically take more threes because you are inefficient at making twos. First of all, you have to take shots you are good at making. Who exactly would be taking these threes? Bradley was a great 3-point shooter last season, best in the country early on. This year his three-point shooting was decent, but it had dropped off. Anticevich is a step slow and can't really create a three point shot where there is none, and in several games was not reliable to give you some threes. South was in an awful slump. Austin does not have 3-point range. Brown's threes are a hope and prayer. What is left, Kuany?

As for twos, Bradley prefers going all the way to the rim, and he is usually well contested. South's 2-point jumpers were not dropping even when he was open. He was in a slump. I don't know if Anticevich could be consistent with shorter jumpers, and we did not see many of those. Austin can finish left, but right, not so well. He has a decent two-point jumper. Brown did not show a 2-point jumper, as I remember. Kelly is our most dependable inside scorer. So we don't have many good options inside the three point circle.

And then there are defenses. If you are making a lot of twos, defenders will sag and start defending that. If you can't make your threes, you lose. Or if you are shooting a lot of well defended threes, and not making them, then you must work to get players open for twos. If you can't make those twos, you lose.

So in the end, if we are to depend solely on talent making shots, we just don't have the talent, as SoCalTownie will tell you. What we need is a coach who can teach players how to get open for good shots, to have a better chance of making them. I'm not sure Fox is the guy, because I haven't seen us take a lot of open shots.

---

1. Thanks to sluggo for providing direction where to find the actual article. I couldn't find it on my own

2. I love socal, but having read the article I have to drastically disagree with his interpretation and representation of the article. I recommend people go read it for themselves. I think socal is spot on about talent, but I think he is letting that overwhelm what is an article that makes very good points because basically for him until we have talent nothing else matters. That may be true, but talent doesn't explain the issue the author is addressing.

3. The author is basically making these points

We shoot an extremely low number of 3's
Our three point shooting is average.
We shoot a high number of FAR 2'S. Not 2's. Not short 2's. Not dunks. Not drives. FAR 2's. That is the point of the article. The author is not saying we should stop shooting short 2's or driving or dunking. He is talking about far, jump shot 2's. He specifically says he is not saying run Lars out to the three point line.
We are bad at shooting far 2's. Our rate of shooting these is almost identical to and actually a smidge worse than our rate of shooting 3's.

He didn't say Fox is an idiot. He did say that in his 15 years of coaching his teams have consistently shot a low number of threes no matter what the talent and that it bears watching.

So I think there is a reasonable point here. The point isn't whether we have good three point shooters. The point is whether we should be taking long 2's instead of 3's. It was not an argument to become the Rockets. It was as much an argument to stop taking long 2's. I would say that for a player who is maybe very consistent from 15, but not from 20, great, take the long 2. Our overall shooting percentage does not indicate that. I'd love to get more granular on the individual shooting stats. You can't have the same 2 guys take all of the shots, so sometimes a guy shooting a 15 footer at a 32% clip one time down the floor might open things up for another guy shooting a three another time down the floor.

But when the numbers are this stark, it is a reasonable question on shot selection. Cal is shooting far 2's at 33.7 percent and those shots are accounting for 34.8% of its shots. Cal is shooting 3's at 33.8% or an effective rate of 50.7% and those shots are accounting for 28.4%. This is not numbers nerd level stuff. It is pretty simple math. Yes, if you shoot more 3's your 3point shooting percentage will go down. (but of course if you shoot fewer far 2's, your shooting percentage for that shot should go up. It is not complicated math to say that you should switch out some of those 34.8% of your shots at 2/3 the effective rate to increase the shots that you are only shooting 28.4% of the time. Your 3 point shooting percentage has a long way to drop before it reaches the lack of efficiency of the far twos.

Does that mean shoot more threes and we'll be awesome? No. Does it mean we will be better? Most likely, yes. We'd still be pretty poor. We won't challenge for conference championships. But "without talent it doesn't matter" doesn't work because the last I checked even if you go 0-18 you want to maximize the talent you have.

The other point was the author claimed (without statistics) that this is true for Fox's career. So if we ever do get the talent it will matter.

Frankly, I'm not sure how earth shattering this is or that it is easy to question. Long 2's are generally not smart and should be the exception you use to open up other shots. You step out to the three point line or you get closer. That is a pretty basic tenet of the modern game.

---

They are consistently running us off the line. With limited options to slash and no great front line finisher they want us to drive. We get scared (rightly) and ergo take long 2s. This is about looking just at Stats and not realize that other teams....you know....game plan against our weaknesses.

---

And their game plan works because they are getting us to take significantly less efficient shots. You sound like the old scouts in MoneyBall. What do you mean it is about just looking at stats? Whatever game plan opponents are employing it is resulting in us hitting long twos at the same rate we hit threes. If the stats were close, you might have an argument. They aren't.

Frankly if you are going to ignore stats this profoundly when you don't like them, you kind of forfeit the ability to use them in a stars matter argument

It doesn't take stats or a genius to realize what I heard Rick Pitino say many years ago. The shot just inside the arc is the worst shot to take in basketball.

Of course, a wide open long two may be better than a well defended 3. But it isn't a good shot unless the offense is deep in the shot clock.

I seriously doubt it is in the Fox game plan to take deep 2's, no matter how many we actually take. Given how many of our shots are deep in the clock, I would guess most of the deep 2's are deep in the clock. Tonight, Grant passed up a halfway decent look at a 3 for a worse look at a 20 footer. He missed, of course. I sure hope Fox told him he made a mistake.

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

An argument for South's problems being in his head is that he is streaky (I'm too lazy to look up game by game stats). Seems that if he shoots well early in a game, he's "on," but if he misses his first couple, he gets in a funk.

---

Many three point shooters are streaky. In the shorter college game, they often don't put up more than one or two threes, and is hard to get warmed up and get zeroed in on the basket. Steph Curry might miss his first 3 or 4 attempts but sent make 5 of 6 and end up with a very good night. I also think sometimes that South would miss his first couple of jump shots, and then seemingly be reluctant to shoot. Obviously, he never lost his shooting touch, because he continued to be an excellent foul shooter. I think it was as you say, he got into a funk, during the action part of the game. The great ones often can miss a lot of shots early in a game, but they never stop shooting. I remember a game where Jerry West went something like 1-15 in the first half of a Laker game, and ended up with about 45 points.

---

We don't have a great three-point shooter. We only have one who would qualify as good based on this season. Curry and West comparisons are inapposite. Neither of those guys is/was streaky at all. If free throw percentage was the test of whether you'd lost your touch, Jordan Poole never lost his touch for the Warriors this year either. I had no problem with South taking open threes because he's shown he can make them before his slump, but he, Matt and Grant are the only rotation players who I'd say that about really.

NathanAllen said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I agree. When Fox signed him, I was concerned that coming to the PAC12 would be a big jump for him, but I was very pleased with his play in the pre-conference season at Cal. What I liked was he not only could make threes, but he also had a very dependable jump shot from 10 feet to mid range, and that would add another dimension to the Cal offense, which needed more ways to score. Unfortunately, when he slumped in the PAC12 season, he was missing a lot of two point jump shots as well as threes. Some of the two pointers he made were layups, so if we subtract those from his two point percentage, then he was shooting maybe 25% on twos, which is almost unheard of.

---

Regarding South, here are some stats that might be of interest according to Torvik:

First, in his four seasons at Corpus-Christi (which included just four games his freshman season), South played in eight games against top-50 opponents and just two others in the top-100. This year he played in 18 games against top-100 teams, 11 of which were against top-50 teams.

2019 2PT overall: 89-208 (42.8%)
2020 2PT overall: 56-148 (37.8%)

2019 3PT overall: 45-129 (35.2%)
2020 3PT overall: 36-119 (30.3%)

2019 2PT conference only: 68-143 (47.6%)
2020 2PT conference only: 23-78 (29.5%)

2019 3PT conference only: 33-90 (36.7%)
2020 3PT conference only: 18-74 (24.3%)

2019 2PT top-100: 5-17 (29.4%)
2020 2PT top-100: 29-90 (32.2%)

2019 3PT top-100: 4-9 (44.4%)
2020 3PT top-100: 23-73 (31.5%)

2020 2PT top-50 only: 20-55 (36.4%)
2020 3PT top-50 only: 16-52 (30.8%)

A few things to consider when looking at these numbers. First, I think a lot of people (myself included) thought the floor and ceiling of this team could be raised depending on how South's game translated to playing better opponents. And as you can see from all numbers above, that transition wasn't a smooth one.

Another thing to consider is the movement of the three-point line. Averages are down across all of college hoops. Also, South was THE scorer at Corpus-Christi. We have no reason to believe being a secondary scorer instead of a primary one affected his game any, but it could have. There also seemed to be a lot more "settling" for threes this year compared to last year, especially in conference play. My speculation is the increase and athleticism, particularly in the Pac-12 kept him from driving and slashing for two-point shots.

---

Another aspect that your numbers reveal is that in 2019 when South was playing at Texas A&M Corpus Christie, he actually shot much better in the Southland Conference than he did overall, both on 2 pointers and on 3 pointers. This might indicate that that the Southland Conference is an even weaker conference than I knew. And looking at some of the schools in that conference, they were also the patsies which Cal has scheduled in the past few years to pad our record. Incarnate Word, Stephen F. Ausitin, Houston Baptist, Sam Houston State, SE Louisiana, etc.

The real Kareem South, the one we had been hoping for, showed up last night. Let's hope he can keep it up, and increase Cal's chances of going deeper into this tournament.

Go Kareem South!

Go Bears!

Tournament cancelled.

SFCityBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I agree. When Fox signed him, I was concerned that coming to the PAC12 would be a big jump for him, but I was very pleased with his play in the pre-conference season at Cal. What I liked was he not only could make threes, but he also had a very dependable jump shot from 10 feet to mid range, and that would add another dimension to the Cal offense, which needed more ways to score. Unfortunately, when he slumped in the PAC12 season, he was missing a lot of two point jump shots as well as threes. Some of the two pointers he made were layups, so if we subtract those from his two point percentage, then he was shooting maybe 25% on twos, which is almost unheard of.

---

Regarding South, here are some stats that might be of interest according to Torvik:

First, in his four seasons at Corpus-Christi (which included just four games his freshman season), South played in eight games against top-50 opponents and just two others in the top-100. This year he played in 18 games against top-100 teams, 11 of which were against top-50 teams.

2019 2PT overall: 89-208 (42.8%)
2020 2PT overall: 56-148 (37.8%)

2019 3PT overall: 45-129 (35.2%)
2020 3PT overall: 36-119 (30.3%)

2019 2PT conference only: 68-143 (47.6%)
2020 2PT conference only: 23-78 (29.5%)

2019 3PT conference only: 33-90 (36.7%)
2020 3PT conference only: 18-74 (24.3%)

2019 2PT top-100: 5-17 (29.4%)
2020 2PT top-100: 29-90 (32.2%)

2019 3PT top-100: 4-9 (44.4%)
2020 3PT top-100: 23-73 (31.5%)

2020 2PT top-50 only: 20-55 (36.4%)
2020 3PT top-50 only: 16-52 (30.8%)

A few things to consider when looking at these numbers. First, I think a lot of people (myself included) thought the floor and ceiling of this team could be raised depending on how South's game translated to playing better opponents. And as you can see from all numbers above, that transition wasn't a smooth one.

Another thing to consider is the movement of the three-point line. Averages are down across all of college hoops. Also, South was THE scorer at Corpus-Christi. We have no reason to believe being a secondary scorer instead of a primary one affected his game any, but it could have. There also seemed to be a lot more "settling" for threes this year compared to last year, especially in conference play. My speculation is the increase and athleticism, particularly in the Pac-12 kept him from driving and slashing for two-point shots.

---

Another aspect that your numbers reveal is that in 2019 when South was playing at Texas A&M Corpus Christie, he actually shot much better in the Southland Conference than he did overall, both on 2 pointers and on 3 pointers. This might indicate that that the Southland Conference is an even weaker conference than I knew. And looking at some of the schools in that conference, they were also the patsies which Cal has scheduled in the past few years to pad our record. Incarnate Word, Stephen F. Ausitin, Houston Baptist, Sam Houston State, SE Louisiana, etc.

---

In 2019, the Southland Conference was ranked 29th out of 32 conferences in KenPom's standings, so, yeah, very weak conference. Stephen F. Austin has had some decent teams over time, but overall a pretty bad conference.