| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63790
Back to top |
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/17/16 6:21 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Cal getting their clocks cleaned at the end of the 3rd quarter, 51-35. I really hate the Oregon court. Those trees make it look like something is wrong with my picture. And those uniforms make it look like the players are really sweaty.
|
|
FollowtheCardinalRule
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 6:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Alleyne completely outclassing Anigwe. Who was it that said that Anigwe would be the best center in the conference this year?
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7851
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 6:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| Alleyne completely outclassing Anigwe. Who was it that said that Anigwe would be the best center in the conference this year? |
Like most big players, she'll probably take a year or two to fully develop. She's only a freshman. Jeez.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 6:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| Alleyne completely outclassing Anigwe. Who was it that said that Anigwe would be the best center in the conference this year? |
Like most big players, she'll probably take a year or two to fully develop. She's only a freshman. Jeez. |
He's referring to ArtBest's contention that Anigwe might be the best center in the PAC12 this season. I hardly think that one game refutes his statement, but Alleyne did play better today.
|
|
FollowtheCardinalRule
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 6:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| Alleyne completely outclassing Anigwe. Who was it that said that Anigwe would be the best center in the conference this year? |
Like most big players, she'll probably take a year or two to fully develop. She's only a freshman. Jeez. |
Which is the kind of sentiment I echoed at the beginning of the year--but there were those who claimed that she was ready to dominate this year and run away with the Pac-12. Anigwe has been good this year--but she is hardly the class of the conference.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 7:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| Alleyne completely outclassing Anigwe. Who was it that said that Anigwe would be the best center in the conference this year? |
Like most big players, she'll probably take a year or two to fully develop. She's only a freshman. Jeez. |
He's referring to ArtBest's contention that Anigwe might be the best center in the PAC12 this season. I hardly think that one game refutes his statement, but Alleyne did play better today. |
And while it's convenient to cherry pick one bad shooting game, on the season I note that Anigwe is averaging 21.5 ppg and shooting .608 while Alleyne is scoring 17.3 and shooting .558.
On a badly coached underperforming team, Anigwe has remained the one amazing bright spot for Cal.
|
|
PRballer
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2544
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 7:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Cal was either gonna be really good or super mediocre. They have a lot of talented athletes and are strong at 3,4,5 but they have given the reins of the offense to an unproven freshmen who is clearly hitting a wall when you look at her stats. And she's rather undersized.
She'll certainly improve (one hopes), but Cal needs help in the backcourt it seems.
HELLO IONESCU!
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 9:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Allyene with 15 boards today passed Stanfords Chiney Ogwumike as the career rebound leader in the PAC. With three more double-doubles, she will become the conference career record holder in that category as well.
|
|
IM in OC
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 999
Location: Orange County, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 11:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PRballer wrote: |
Cal was either gonna be really good or super mediocre. They have a lot of talented athletes and are strong at 3,4,5 but they have given the reins of the offense to an unproven freshmen who is clearly hitting a wall when you look at her stats. And she's rather undersized.
She'll certainly improve (one hopes), but Cal needs help in the backcourt it seems.
HELLO IONESCU! |
True they have given it to an unproven freshmen but so has OSU, in McWilliams and she isnt a pg, but more of a combo guard. It all depends on how you handle it, and how the coach can work you into the scheme.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14110
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 11:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| IM in OC wrote: |
| PRballer wrote: |
Cal was either gonna be really good or super mediocre. They have a lot of talented athletes and are strong at 3,4,5 but they have given the reins of the offense to an unproven freshmen who is clearly hitting a wall when you look at her stats. And she's rather undersized.
She'll certainly improve (one hopes), but Cal needs help in the backcourt it seems.
HELLO IONESCU! |
True they have given it to an unproven freshmen but so has OSU, in McWilliams and she isnt a pg, but more of a combo guard. It all depends on how you handle it, and how the coach can work you into the scheme. |
I think the surrounding players also makes a big difference, Katie McWilliams has Sydney Wiese as a mentor, as well as having players like Gabriella Hanson and Jamie Weisner who both have experience and can step up and help her, and provide some advice. Asha Thomas doesn't have any of that, she has to learn on the fly, and while I think she can be a successful player, it will cause her have many ups and downs while she is learn on the job, so to speak.
|
|
PRballer
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2544
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 6:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| IM in OC wrote: |
| PRballer wrote: |
Cal was either gonna be really good or super mediocre. They have a lot of talented athletes and are strong at 3,4,5 but they have given the reins of the offense to an unproven freshmen who is clearly hitting a wall when you look at her stats. And she's rather undersized.
She'll certainly improve (one hopes), but Cal needs help in the backcourt it seems.
HELLO IONESCU! |
True they have given it to an unproven freshmen but so has OSU, in McWilliams and she isnt a pg, but more of a combo guard. It all depends on how you handle it, and how the coach can work you into the scheme. |
I think the surrounding players also makes a big difference, Katie McWilliams has Sydney Wiese as a mentor, as well as having players like Gabriella Hanson and Jamie Weisner who both have experience and can step up and help her, and provide some advice. Asha Thomas doesn't have any of that, she has to learn on the fly, and while I think she can be a successful player, it will cause her have many ups and downs while she is learn on the job, so to speak. |
Yeah I agree with the above post. Oregon State is in a different situation in that their PG freshmen is just now stepping into the role. Asha Thomas started off with a bang (look at early games) and has a hit bit of a wall and has little help in terms of experienced guard play. Oregon State can also pair Weisner with McWilliams.
So, no, not the same situation at all.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 9:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| Alleyne completely outclassing Anigwe. Who was it that said that Anigwe would be the best center in the conference this year? |
Like most big players, she'll probably take a year or two to fully develop. She's only a freshman. Jeez. |
He's referring to ArtBest's contention that Anigwe might be the best center in the PAC12 this season. I hardly think that one game refutes his statement, but Alleyne did play better today. |
And while it's convenient to cherry pick one bad shooting game, on the season I note that Anigwe is averaging 21.5 ppg and shooting .608 while Alleyne is scoring 17.3 and shooting .558.
On a badly coached underperforming team, Anigwe has remained the one amazing bright spot for Cal. |
That "badly coached" part strikes me as assuming facts not necessarily in evidence. What, exactly, is LG doing poorly as a coach?
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 9:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| Alleyne completely outclassing Anigwe. Who was it that said that Anigwe would be the best center in the conference this year? |
Like most big players, she'll probably take a year or two to fully develop. She's only a freshman. Jeez. |
He's referring to ArtBest's contention that Anigwe might be the best center in the PAC12 this season. I hardly think that one game refutes his statement, but Alleyne did play better today. |
And while it's convenient to cherry pick one bad shooting game, on the season I note that Anigwe is averaging 21.5 ppg and shooting .608 while Alleyne is scoring 17.3 and shooting .558.
On a badly coached underperforming team, Anigwe has remained the one amazing bright spot for Cal. |
That "badly coached" part strikes me as assuming facts not necessarily in evidence. What, exactly, is LG doing poorly as a coach? |
You're asking the wrong question. The right question is what evidence exists that they are well coached, and the answer is "none". They're a mess, they are drastically underperforming their talent level, and they are showing no improvement.
|
|
22
Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 102
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 1:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| Alleyne completely outclassing Anigwe. Who was it that said that Anigwe would be the best center in the conference this year? |
Like most big players, she'll probably take a year or two to fully develop. She's only a freshman. Jeez. |
He's referring to ArtBest's contention that Anigwe might be the best center in the PAC12 this season. I hardly think that one game refutes his statement, but Alleyne did play better today. |
And while it's convenient to cherry pick one bad shooting game, on the season I note that Anigwe is averaging 21.5 ppg and shooting .608 while Alleyne is scoring 17.3 and shooting .558.
On a badly coached underperforming team, Anigwe has remained the one amazing bright spot for Cal. |
That "badly coached" part strikes me as assuming facts not necessarily in evidence. What, exactly, is LG doing poorly as a coach? |
You're asking the wrong question. The right question is what evidence exists that they are well coached, and the answer is "none". They're a mess, they are drastically underperforming their talent level, and they are showing no improvement. |
Why do you assume you know what they had to work with to start? I agree they're a mess right now, but people also seem to assume their "talent and athleticism" is higher than it actually is.
Other than Anigwe, who I agree has been very good and has even better potential, who is an elite talent?
Other than Cowling (and Anigwe), who has shown such great athleticism? They have great length but no quickness, which clearly hurts them on defense and ballhandling/driving.
Even Anigwe contributes to the mess because she makes way too many TOs and typical freshman defensive mistakes (she has made some improvement in both over the season so far -- how much should be assumed is due to coaching?) And she's a post who needs someone to get her the ball, as well as support to combat double & triple-teaming. Cal does not have anyone else who's shown the consistent ability to make plays to get Anigwe the ball or score themselves.
As mentioned before, recruit rankings are not a great way to evaluate potential - but Cal only has 3 top 20 recruits and 3 in the 35 - 60 range. This is nothing like a Duke or Tennessee type of recruiting talent pool.
If 1 or 2 of those turn out not to have the assumed talent/skill to justify their ranking, the coaches' job is going to be exponentially harder. And Cal has so little depth and no seniors, what they're left with doesn't give the coaches enough options and makes them easier to coach against.
Cal's had to give 64 min a game to guards shooting 26% and 17 3pt% in conference.... If they hit a few more of their open shots, I bet the coaching looks at least a little better. The problem lately is other coaches have been going zone against Cal. Understandably, Anigwe is less effective against good zones, and because Cal doesn't have anyone who possesses the talent/skill to penetrate a zone with the dribble -- and is shooting very poorly from the outside -- they're going to look like a mess.
I imagine the coaches could be doing a better job - but fans just going on the evidence they see from the outside to make either/or conclusions of badly vs well coached seems overly simplistic.... Especially when it appears people have generally overestimated Cal's talent/athleticism.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 2:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| 22 wrote: |
As mentioned before, recruit rankings are not a great way to evaluate potential - but Cal only has 3 top 20 recruits and 3 in the 35 - 60 range. This is nothing like a Duke or Tennessee type of recruiting talent pool.
|
So? How many teams in the country are like Duke or Tenn? Not many and no one on Cal's schedule. And no one in the PAC. Who in the PAC has a roster with equal raw talent? The only real competitor is UCLA.
By the way, my comments about Cal's coaching are not based solely on this year. In my opinion it's been a continuing issue.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 4:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| Alleyne completely outclassing Anigwe. Who was it that said that Anigwe would be the best center in the conference this year? |
Like most big players, she'll probably take a year or two to fully develop. She's only a freshman. Jeez. |
He's referring to ArtBest's contention that Anigwe might be the best center in the PAC12 this season. I hardly think that one game refutes his statement, but Alleyne did play better today. |
And while it's convenient to cherry pick one bad shooting game, on the season I note that Anigwe is averaging 21.5 ppg and shooting .608 while Alleyne is scoring 17.3 and shooting .558.
On a badly coached underperforming team, Anigwe has remained the one amazing bright spot for Cal. |
That "badly coached" part strikes me as assuming facts not necessarily in evidence. What, exactly, is LG doing poorly as a coach? |
You're asking the wrong question. The right question is what evidence exists that they are well coached, and the answer is "none". They're a mess, they are drastically underperforming their talent level, and they are showing no improvement. |
This seems like some real goalpost moving. You ventured an assertion (Cal is "badly coached"), I asked you to back up the assertion, and your response is to ask what evidence exists that they are "well coached"? I think it's possible that space exists between those two poles.
Cal is not playing winning basketball right now, and maybe that's because of poor coaching, or maybe that's because the team is forced to play a true-freshman point guard (who was not an elite-level recruit) and also because the team is incredibly short-benched at present, causing the available players to be exhausted. I don't personally know the answer, but for me to accept as a given that it's due solely to the first explanation and not the second and/or third, I'd need to hear a bit of actual reasoning.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 4:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| [ I don't personally know the answer, but for me to accept as a given that it's due solely to the first explanation and not the second and/or third, I'd need to hear a bit of actual reasoning. |
It's a PAC team. I expect that response from you. But if you disagree, why not tell me why you think they ARE well coached, particularly when even you start from the proposition that "Cal is not playing winning basketball right now." Instead of just saying "prove it" to others, why not try proving your own position? I need to hear a bit of actual reasoning. To me all you have to do is watch them a few times and it's self evident. Res ipsa loquitur
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 5:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| [ I don't personally know the answer, but for me to accept as a given that it's due solely to the first explanation and not the second and/or third, I'd need to hear a bit of actual reasoning. |
It's a PAC team. I expect that response from you. But if you disagree, why not tell me why you think they ARE well coached, particularly when even you start from the proposition that "Cal is not playing winning basketball right now." Instead of just saying "prove it" to others, why not try proving your own position? I need to hear a bit of actual reasoning. To me all you have to do is watch them a few times and it's self evident. Res ipsa loquitur |
Art, that's simply not the way this is supposed to work. *You* made a declaration of fact, not me. You declared, without qualification, that Cal is "poorly coached". Instead of then supporting your assertion when requested to do so, you put the onus on me to prove the opposite… and to prove, just by the way, something that I never actually declared (that Cal is "well coached"). Kinda weak.
I have watched Cal, Art, lots of times, and I myself *don't* think it's "self evident" that Cal is "poorly coached". Maybe you could help me to see it your way, but evidently you're disinclined to support your assertion with any reasoning that isn't circular (e.g., they're poorly coached because they're losing because they're poorly coached). That's a bit of a disappointment, 'cause I know you can do better. But the world keeps spinning.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 6:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
No, what's not "the way it's supposed to work" is that you can't demand that posters post in the way you want them to post.
You have a different opinion. You're welcome to it. When I see a team that year after year remains a sloppy undisciplined turnover fest, even as players come and go, then what I see is that the one constant is the coaching. As I said, I think it's obvious, but then I'm not a PAC apologist.
I actually gave Cal the benefit of the doubt this year and picked them to win the PAC. They have the talent. I just didn't discount their performance enough for the coaching.
I do find it amusing how you demand "explanations" from others but provide none for your own position.
|
|
FollowtheCardinalRule
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 6:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
No, what's not "the way it's supposed to work" is that you can't demand that posters post in the way you want them to post.
You have a different opinion. You're welcome to it. When I see a team that year after year remains a sloppy undisciplined turnover fest, even as players come and go, then what I see is that the one constant is the coaching. As I said, I think it's obvious, but then I'm not a PAC apologist.
I actually gave Cal the benefit of the doubt this year and picked them to win the PAC. They have the talent. I just didn't discount their performance enough for the coaching.
I do find it amusing how you demand "explanations" from others but provide none for your own position. |
Art, For the purposes of discussion, Pat is merely wondering what elements you are looking at that qualify Cal as "badly coached." Based upon your conclusions, for the purposes of discussion, Pat, along with others can choose to interpret your impressions in a different way--or perhaps provide evidence that refutes a conclusion that you have made . While you are more than welcome to your perspective on Lindsay Gottlieb, I'm sure for the purposes of a useful discussion we'd love to hear your observations and the context for them instead of painting a picture without proper context that others can't understand. Others are merely attempting to understand how you made your conclusion.
As for my own conclusions. While I do believe that Cal certainly has some talent, they are still an incredibly young team, with a roster that contains zero seniors. I think that the recent problems and the season long turnover issue can be attributed to a variety of factors. Firstly, the loss of the heir presumptive to the mantle of leadership, Mercedes Jefflo, is a huge loss to Gottleib's team--Jefflo certainly would have provided some good mentorship to the young arrivals on the team--and given that Jefflo had a positive A/TO ratio last season--you might surmise that she could have provided a steadier ball handler that could help significantly reduce the turnovers. The second major issue that I see with the Golden Bears this season is the alarming lack of depth. The reality is that Cal really only competes with seven players (that's being generous), and an eighth who receives minimal minutes. One might surmise that the lack of player causes issues in a number of situations. Firstly, the lack of practice players means that adapting to a new offense for the new arrivals takes longer than it normally might. Secondly, the lack of depth requires the players to compete in games for longer than other players on other teams. Those minutes certainly add up--and can certainly provide a rough transition to college basketball for freshmen. It seems no coincidence that Anigwe and Thomas are two of the top three turnover producers. The other, Gabby Green, has been plunged into a role where she is required to distribute the ball much more than she did last year--and already has 81 assists as opposed to 53 turnovers. This is a Cal team that has displayed some potential by beating UCLA, Nebraska, and Louisville, but the rigors of traveling, competing, and a depleted roster have certainly provided some challenges for the young Golden Bears. There is some promise being shown in recent games, as Cal has reduced it's turnovers to more manageable numbers in recent games--the high being 17 turnovers in a convincing win over Colorado within the last five games. It's interesting that the decrease in turnovers recently has not corresponded with an increase in victories. There is improvement going on--but as aforementioned, time will tell where Cal ends up.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 6:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
As for my own conclusions. While I do believe that Cal certainly has some talent, they are still an incredibly young team, with a roster that contains zero seniors. |
As I said, I see the very same problems with them this year as I've seen every year even as players come and go. The "they're young" just doesn't wash.
Second, other teams like Louisville for example started off bad as they worked in a lot of new players, but have dramatically improved. I don't see any improvement in Cal even though we're halfway into the the season.
I've given my reasons several times. I'd like to better understand Pat's defense too.
|
|
22
Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 102
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 7:04 pm ::: f |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
No, what's not "the way it's supposed to work" is that you can't demand that posters post in the way you want them to post.
You have a different opinion. You're welcome to it. When I see a team that year after year remains a sloppy undisciplined turnover fest, even as players come and go, then what I see is that the one constant is the coaching. As I said, I think it's obvious, but then I'm not a PAC apologist.
I actually gave Cal the benefit of the doubt this year and picked them to win the PAC. They have the talent. I just didn't discount their performance enough for the coaching.
I do find it amusing how you demand "explanations" from others but provide none for your own position. |
I provided plenty of support beyond the Duke/Tenn comparison (which occurred to me because this same theme and even comments on Cal have popped up in Duke/TN threads), but you chose to cherry-pick that one sentence and avoid responding to any of the other points to back up your point....
Just as you did, btw, when you conveniently disregarded my rebuttal of your view that Cal was just as sloppy their FF year as they were in the ASU gm (you also neglected to look where the TOs in question vs ASU occurred and correct your earlier characterization).
Also there is a difference between 'talent' and 'raw talent.' In baseball scouting they use raw power and game power as two separate tools evaluating players. Coaching alone can't necessarily get raw power to translate to games.... Similarly, there are plenty of factors that go into converting certain types of raw bball talent into game talent on the court, which go beyond your well coached/badly coached dichotomy.
If your only explanation is "its obvious" based on watching someone a few times, that's fine (though not worth very much) -- but then you shouldn't really be calling out other posters for not providing enough reasoning.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/18/16 9:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
No, what's not "the way it's supposed to work" is that you can't demand that posters post in the way you want them to post.
You have a different opinion. You're welcome to it. When I see a team that year after year remains a sloppy undisciplined turnover fest, even as players come and go, then what I see is that the one constant is the coaching. As I said, I think it's obvious, but then I'm not a PAC apologist.
I actually gave Cal the benefit of the doubt this year and picked them to win the PAC. They have the talent. I just didn't discount their performance enough for the coaching.
I do find it amusing how you demand "explanations" from others but provide none for your own position. |
I've voiced no "opinion", Art, and I've stated no "position", beyond this one single solitary one: that your assertion (Cal is "poorly coached") declares as fact something that I find not necessarily to be in evidence, and so I would love to hear your basis for it. Your assertion may, in fact, be correct, Art, I don't know! I have not opined firm disagreement with you on that particular assertion, and I *certainly* have not declared Cal to be "well coached". I just wanted to hear your reasoning. It was a pretty simple request.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| When I see a team that year after year remains a sloppy undisciplined turnover fest, even as players come and go, then what I see is that the one constant is the coaching. |
Okay, now we're getting somewhere! Turnovers! Let's talk about 'em! Cal's TO ratio this year is, yes, 3rd-worst in the conference: 22.8, compared to the national average of 22.1. Is that because of poor coaching in Berkeley? Or is that because injuries and attrition are forcing Cal to play a lightly-recruited freshman point guard for 33mpg? I dunno! Let's look at more numbers!
In 2014-15, Cal's TO ratio was a bit better: 20.8, which just happens to be *lower* than the national average (21.9). Was Cal a better-coached team last year than this year? I dunno! Maybe! Let's keep looking!
In 2013-14, Cal's TO ratio was even better: 19.1, as compared to the league average of 19.5, and the national average of 21.25. Was Cal an even *better* better-coached team back then? I still don't know! I *do* know, though, that the two *sloppiest* teams in the conference that year, as measured by TO rate, were Oregon State (22.6) and Arizona State (22.6). Both happened to be NCAA Tournament teams that very year, but those TO numbers certainly don't lie, so I guess those teams were poorly-coached by Scott Rueck and Charlie Turner Thorne! Right? Or not? Who knows? Let's keep looking at numbers!
In 2012-13, Cal's TO ratio was 3rd-lowest in the conference: 19.1, compared to a league-average of 21.5 and a national average of 23.1. Maybe Cal was still yet an even *better* better better-coached team that year, and every single other team in the conference (save two) was poorly-coached? I don't know!
I honestly don't know about any of this!
But I do confess that I'm having trouble finding-- in the data cited above-- strong corroboration for this sentence of yours: "I see a team that year after year remains a sloppy undisciplined turnover fest, even as players come and go"
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Second, other teams like Louisville for example started off bad as they worked in a lot of new players, but have dramatically improved. I don't see any improvement in Cal even though we're halfway into the the season. |
Are these "other teams like Louisville" forced to play a true freshman point guard (ranked 100th or lower by HoopGurlz) for 33 mpg? Have injuries and attrition reduced these "other teams like Louisville" to a 6-player rotation? Can you name some teams in this nation for whom the above two circumstances currently apply, and who are playing better basketball than Cal at present?
Last edited by patsweetpat on 01/18/16 9:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
