"What are the odds that a team shooting 27.5% would go 16/22 from deep? I don’t know, and I’m not qualified to calculate it, but I can tell you that in the history of Cal MBB, this game is an absurd outlier."
The odds of this Cal team making 16 (or more) threes out of 22 is about 1 in 75,000. By contrast, the odds of that Wofford team going 17/21 is only 1 in 4500.
I think knowledgeable observers of the men's basketball team would appreciate that at the beginning of the season, Cal was using a combination of inexperience players. To his credit, Coach Fox developed his bench, even as it cost them early games, in spite of some good defensive performances. But finally, with the return of injured players, and the development of others like the two freshmen mentioned in the article, the Bears have combined strong defense with adequate offense. In the Colorado game they learned they have to finish which they did against a woeful Stanford team. The match-up in Pullman will be more difficult, as it will in Seattle. Both teams have strong inside players that Lars and Okafor will have difficulty defending, and will make penetration to the basket much more daunting. We can only hope that the Bears improved play and experience will enable them to compete effectively and competitively.
As reef liked to say, 'variance' although this is pretty extreme.
As to the larger, overall, improvement - getting Okafor a lot more minutes, and moving Lars from the central pivot of the offense to a dunker's spot, low post, offensive rebounder seems to be good for everybody. I am not qualified to coach a NCAA team, but using Lars as the screener (not a great screen setter, not dangerous on the roll, and those possessions where he goes to the elbow and catches it there - he's had, what two? three? great plays from the elbow - one spin and drive and finish, and one really really nice pocket pass to a backdoor cutter) is coaching malpractice. Okafor, on the other hand can catch it on the move, can finish lobs and is a much better screen setter. Yes, he definitely makes a ton of mistakes, but he's much more lively. Lars hanging around as a baseline finisher seems to me to make a ton more sense. Catch the ball one step away, finish over either shoulder or with a dunk. He's shown he can do that as long as he gets a clean catch and go straight up.
Something happened overnight to change the fortunes of Cal basketball. If the team can play with a modicum of that Stanford performance (and to a lesser extent Colorado) then as you say we are suddenly a middle of the pack Pac-12 team. If we can beat Wazzu and Washington on the road we could even be a factor in the conference. Less running of the offense through Lars takes the pressure off him and lets our other long guys who are athletic create.
IMO, it's Askew out and assists. It seems to me that Askew thinks to score first, second, and third, rarely looking for his teammates. With him out, we're passing more and playing as a team, generating more assists. I think we're a better team without him.
Also, it's funny to me when opposing teams press us to slow down the offense. Don't they know that we'll use up 20+ seconds just futzing around all on our own. :) (Well, except for that game where Clayton decided to get trapped in the corner multiple times.)
I see a giant change in Fox's offensive philosophy which has only now been possible primarily by the addition of Clayton and also by improved play by Okafor & Newell.
Previously, Fox (rightly or wrongly) determined that Cal's only way to stay in games was to slow things down, go deep into the shot clock on each possession. This kept the score down, but the downside is too many last-minute desperation shots.
With a capable guard duo, and an additional reliable shooter, the offense is now looking for the first good shot, which reduces the stress on shooters. I thought this in the CU game and in this one Stanford played the ideal defense (collapsing in the middle as BP mentioned in his writeup) for Cal to have a hot shooting night. Furd was very poor at closing out on long range shots.
Against a slightly better defensive team, this game all of a sudden becomes much closer. That extra half-foot of space makes all the difference in not having to feel like you need to adjust your shot.
This percentage-wise shooting won't happen again any time soon, but it does bode well for the future. I hope Askew's return doesn't harm the dynamic (as I've pointed out perviously).
As far as Clayton, while not as spectacular - his presence vs CU did play a major role in that game, and I forgive him for not having even an average night in his first game back after missing most of a year. btw - was so happy for Joel Brown in that game.
There is probably more evidence to suggest the Stanford game was more an outlier than a harbinger. Still seems unlikely that we can win a conference road game, and we haven't had to contend with the conference blue bloods yet. I suspect we'll get 2 more conference wins and look back and see we went 5-26.
"What are the odds that a team shooting 27.5% would go 16/22 from deep? I don’t know, and I’m not qualified to calculate it, but I can tell you that in the history of Cal MBB, this game is an absurd outlier."
The odds of this Cal team making 16 (or more) threes out of 22 is about 1 in 75,000. By contrast, the odds of that Wofford team going 17/21 is only 1 in 4500.
I think knowledgeable observers of the men's basketball team would appreciate that at the beginning of the season, Cal was using a combination of inexperience players. To his credit, Coach Fox developed his bench, even as it cost them early games, in spite of some good defensive performances. But finally, with the return of injured players, and the development of others like the two freshmen mentioned in the article, the Bears have combined strong defense with adequate offense. In the Colorado game they learned they have to finish which they did against a woeful Stanford team. The match-up in Pullman will be more difficult, as it will in Seattle. Both teams have strong inside players that Lars and Okafor will have difficulty defending, and will make penetration to the basket much more daunting. We can only hope that the Bears improved play and experience will enable them to compete effectively and competitively.
FEAR THE (WOFFORD) TERRIERS!
As reef liked to say, 'variance' although this is pretty extreme.
As to the larger, overall, improvement - getting Okafor a lot more minutes, and moving Lars from the central pivot of the offense to a dunker's spot, low post, offensive rebounder seems to be good for everybody. I am not qualified to coach a NCAA team, but using Lars as the screener (not a great screen setter, not dangerous on the roll, and those possessions where he goes to the elbow and catches it there - he's had, what two? three? great plays from the elbow - one spin and drive and finish, and one really really nice pocket pass to a backdoor cutter) is coaching malpractice. Okafor, on the other hand can catch it on the move, can finish lobs and is a much better screen setter. Yes, he definitely makes a ton of mistakes, but he's much more lively. Lars hanging around as a baseline finisher seems to me to make a ton more sense. Catch the ball one step away, finish over either shoulder or with a dunk. He's shown he can do that as long as he gets a clean catch and go straight up.
Something happened overnight to change the fortunes of Cal basketball. If the team can play with a modicum of that Stanford performance (and to a lesser extent Colorado) then as you say we are suddenly a middle of the pack Pac-12 team. If we can beat Wazzu and Washington on the road we could even be a factor in the conference. Less running of the offense through Lars takes the pressure off him and lets our other long guys who are athletic create.
IMO, it's Askew out and assists. It seems to me that Askew thinks to score first, second, and third, rarely looking for his teammates. With him out, we're passing more and playing as a team, generating more assists. I think we're a better team without him.
Also, it's funny to me when opposing teams press us to slow down the offense. Don't they know that we'll use up 20+ seconds just futzing around all on our own. :) (Well, except for that game where Clayton decided to get trapped in the corner multiple times.)
I see a giant change in Fox's offensive philosophy which has only now been possible primarily by the addition of Clayton and also by improved play by Okafor & Newell.
Previously, Fox (rightly or wrongly) determined that Cal's only way to stay in games was to slow things down, go deep into the shot clock on each possession. This kept the score down, but the downside is too many last-minute desperation shots.
With a capable guard duo, and an additional reliable shooter, the offense is now looking for the first good shot, which reduces the stress on shooters. I thought this in the CU game and in this one Stanford played the ideal defense (collapsing in the middle as BP mentioned in his writeup) for Cal to have a hot shooting night. Furd was very poor at closing out on long range shots.
Against a slightly better defensive team, this game all of a sudden becomes much closer. That extra half-foot of space makes all the difference in not having to feel like you need to adjust your shot.
This percentage-wise shooting won't happen again any time soon, but it does bode well for the future. I hope Askew's return doesn't harm the dynamic (as I've pointed out perviously).
As far as Clayton, while not as spectacular - his presence vs CU did play a major role in that game, and I forgive him for not having even an average night in his first game back after missing most of a year. btw - was so happy for Joel Brown in that game.
There is probably more evidence to suggest the Stanford game was more an outlier than a harbinger. Still seems unlikely that we can win a conference road game, and we haven't had to contend with the conference blue bloods yet. I suspect we'll get 2 more conference wins and look back and see we went 5-26.