I didn't spend the time doing the math, but basically Cal's 3 point % would have to drop to like near 20% for it to stop making sense in terms of a pure points perspective?
I do not think the games between UCLA and UW’s 1-3-1 showed cause for alarm on offense. But how we handled the 1-3-1’s since are cause for alarm. If I was Furd, I would come out in a 1-3-1 until we figure out how to score on it.
Oh this is dumb. Do you WATCH the games? Grant's release is Slllooooowwww and so he needs to be open longer than most P5 recruits. We don't have a pick and pop guy at either the 5 (or really the 4 cause Grant is much more a SF than a PF). South has been in a shooting slump the whole of conference bricking a huge number of WIDE OPEN three point shots. Paris doesn't have a good jumper from outside. Brown can't hit free throws so I am not sure how he is hitting 3s. Bradley is getting run off the line nearly every possession.
I love cal fans but I really do believe that so many real world math wiz's end up getting blinded by stats and not really focusing on the REASONS for some of those number. Data sometimes without context is just noise.
The real concern is that we do NOT have Pac12 caliber talent. Until that changes we are what we are.
Not saying he doesn't know his stuff, but in what universe is "oh this is dumb. Do you WATCH the games?" not rude? C'mon CB49; you don't need to defend that kind of language
Yeah I was slightly rude BUT these takes frustrate me (and they are all too common at Cal - for reasons I can not begin to understand). It says "well it is just coaching...." that somehow some scheme (or some offensive game plan) can make up for a talent gap that is pretty clear based on the eyeball test. And I PERSONALLY do not believe that pointing out a talent gap is somehow "attacking our players.". They very much have worked their asses off to perform at the level they have this season and deserve props.
But we have THREE kids that have ANY outside shot. One (Grant) has a slow release. He is easy to defend. You can go under screens and still recover because his release is still slow for P5. Maybe getting better. Maybe just decisiveness. But regardless it is SLOW and so getting him open looks is hard. KK just has limited minutes and it is hard to know whether, over the course of a full season playing 20+ minutes a game whether he continues to shoot well and with starting defenders. Jury out. And course there is Matt B. who gets double teamed and trapped and run off the line.
What these posts do which irritate me is blame the coaches for scheme rather than lean into the issues of recruiting, having a higher standard for athletes than the rest of the conference and somehow buy into the myth of movies like Hoosiers that all we need is a coach and like Hickery High we can win it all.
Cal needs p5 level players to compete. We play UCLA, ZONa, Oregon every year. Usually up to 6 times. Lets not forget the criminal enterprise known as USC. If you want to WIN we have to at least have talent that MIGHT be able to crack their roster. That is the goal for Fox, not somehow running more double screens for guys like Paris who is shooting under 25% from 3.
"What these posts do which irritate me is blame the coaches for scheme rather than lean into the issues of recruiting, having a higher standard for athletes than the rest of the conference and somehow buy into the myth of movies like Hoosiers that all we need is a coach and like Hickery High we can win it all."
There can be multiple issues on one team, and just because I didn't spend time talking about Cal's recruiting and retention issues in this post doesn't mean I don't think they very much exist. And like I noted in the article itself, I don't think that Cal's shot selection issues are a magic fix to this year's problems. But I think they illustrate a weakness in offensive coaching that has been a consistent feature of Mark Fox's style for . . . well, his entire tenure as a head coach, and I think that's worth talking about too.
I highly doubt anyone here disagrees with the fact that we could use better recruited talent, and I thought this post noted the loss of three talented players from last year’s team creating the NEED for an assessment like this until higher level recruits can be brought on board. The beauty of this blog is that you can add your informed perspective and have a civil discussion about it. I appreciate your recognition of tone. Go Bears!
Yeah, I didn’t really read the article as blaming the coaches, or a suggestion that we don’t need a major talent upgrade. The point I gathered is that our system isn’t exactly leaning into the way basketball has evolved and continues to evolve, and I think it’s a fair question to ask whether it’s a product of our personnel (which admittedly isn’t very good — though I will say the one documented way for less talented teams to beat more talented teams is to hike the variance by taking MORE threes, not fewer threes) or a product of a coach who has basically played like this his entire career.
Either way, do we really need to be calling people dumb? Especially people that anybody who has read this blog and it’s predecessor for several years should be able to easily discern is not dumb?
1. Yes, I have watched games. 16 of the 18 conference games, specifically, which roughly matches how much Cal basketball I've watched since, I dunno, 2009.
2. I disagree that lack of talent/athleticism is the ONLY reason Cal isn't taking more 3s. For just one example, Cal's rate of attempting 3 pointers in conference play vs. non-con play is virtually identical.
3. Washington State, a team roughly as talented/athletic as Cal (maybe less so!), is currently 126th in the country and 2nd in the conference in 3 point rate. They're a bad shooting team from everywhere, but why is WSU able to get three point shots off?
4. Do you believe that creating 3 point shots is a focal point of the Mark Fox offense? Do you believe that nearly every previous Mark Fox coached team had significantly below average athleticism such that they were unable to get off 3 point shots?
#2 - that is because we had less talent than about 1/2 of our OOC opponents. We really, in terms of talent, are that bad.
#3 - Because Washington, while a bad shooting team, has guys that CAN hit them. Elerby, Boton and Robinson have about 63% of their attempts and are not THAT bad from the arc. It is the rest of the team that shoots woeful and probably shouldn't. BTW - Elerby woudl be our best player.
#4a. Well....that is hard to answer because the offense isn't designed to get Paris Austin open to brick a three. Nor should it. Grant is open ALL THE TIME, he just is too slow to get it off (and lacks confidence to do so). We definately don't run a lot of down screens - but I also think that is, with a short bench, Fox hasn't been able to run a ton of motion _AND_ our guys don't actually shoot very well coming off the curl or down screen - Matt likes to have the rock in his hands with his step back and grant is a two feet planted in cement guy before letting it fly. South is open on the ball reversals and can't hit the side of a barn. As noted, we set a TON of screens up top that if we had a stretch four would be fantastic in a pick and pop.
#4b). His WOlfpack teams generally shot the rock relatively well and at a decent if not abnormally high rate.
#4c). Some of this is also by design. No three = fewer long rebounds and thus fewer fast breaks. Compare that statistic - we are limiting run outs to a huge degree. And that is by design - when this team wins it wins by making the game ugly - fewer possesions, long clock, few fast breaks, limit TO's up top.
I don't disagree that the PROGRAM needs better outside shooters and needs to understand that is the direction of the game. I don't think Fox doesn't know that. But this team lacks shooters and I am not sure Fox is to blame. Lets revisit next March - both as we will see what we have AND know what is coming in for year three on the recruiting side. If we continue to brick it up we can resurrect the post.
"Grant is open ALL THE TIME, he just is too slow to get it off (and lacks confidence to do so)."
I've seen Mark Fox get on him, like literally screaming in his face right after removing him from the game, for hunting for his shot. He had taken 2-3 3s that he missed and they weren't that well defneded. It seems like Grant goes through stretches where he isn't looking for his shot, even when he's wide open, to move the ball around.
FWIW, Fox's Nevada teams didn't ever shoot 3s at an average rate even for that period of basketball - his teams ranged from 217th to 330th in the nation in 3 point attempt rate.
Also FWIW, I wish I had focused in the article more on taking fewer of the obviously bad shots (long 2 point jumpers) rather than the type of shots Cal should be trying to create instead, though I still maintain that there are ways to create more 3 point shot opportunities.
Thank you. You CAN get long rebounds. But MANY games cal isn't crashing the boards. Frankly kudos to Kelly for getting as many O boards as he has - really a place of improvement. Instead, Cal almost only sends 2 to the boards and rotates back three. A huge point of emphasis is not to let people run on them.
And one of the things that doesn't show up in most metrics is that you want to limit breaks because of how easy it is to score with them _AND_ how it can swing momentum. Nothing like a monster dunk to rattle the opponent - especially at home. The Bears main way of winning this year has been to hold teams to the 60s.
On the latter point, I think it would just be a matter of comparing effective FG% to 2 pt FG%, and see which is higher. In most instances, eFG% is going to be higher, which is why the number of 3’s taken at all levels of basketball has gone up dramatically.
Very interesting analysis. I'd had a feeling all season that something was wrong strategically with the offense but couldn't put my finger on the problem. This makes it crystal clear. Also, it appears (as you comment) that we are not trying very hard to get good three point looks. The OSU zone for example stifled our outside shooting. Even Bradley could not get open. Then, if we go inside we have a tendency to miss short shots and layups.
We don't really have a credible offensive threat in the low post, which really limits the ceiling of this O, IMO...especially when you're not exactly running an up-tempo system that leads to easy buckets (i.e. a typical Mark Fox O). The math is the math - as always, I agree with Nick's analysis...it's all right there to a certain degree in the numbers, and makes total sense. I also agree with Erik tho - take the stats out of it entirely, and Cal just doesn't pass the eye test. Kareem's struggles are a real bummer...he is shooting at about a 30% clip beyond the arc, after being a career >36% shooter from 3 at TXAM-CC...that hurts. Sure, it's just a bucket or 2 a night, and that may not be the difference between a W or an L, but when your 2 guard consistently misfires on open looks within the framework of the set, or worse yet doesn't even take the shot, it leaves a big hole. Couple that with the fact that our primary points really can't shoot from a distance, it spells trouble. At the end of the day, while coaches need to put players in a position to make plays, the players still need to execute. We just don't have the horses right now....
"No, I’m not advocating that Cal sends DJ Thorpe and Lars Thiemann out to the 3 point line to bomb away indiscriminately."
Well, why not, Nick?
I didn't spend the time doing the math, but basically Cal's 3 point % would have to drop to like near 20% for it to stop making sense in terms of a pure points perspective?
I imagine it's not a straight percentage shift is the thing.
I do not think the games between UCLA and UW’s 1-3-1 showed cause for alarm on offense. But how we handled the 1-3-1’s since are cause for alarm. If I was Furd, I would come out in a 1-3-1 until we figure out how to score on it.
Oh this is dumb. Do you WATCH the games? Grant's release is Slllooooowwww and so he needs to be open longer than most P5 recruits. We don't have a pick and pop guy at either the 5 (or really the 4 cause Grant is much more a SF than a PF). South has been in a shooting slump the whole of conference bricking a huge number of WIDE OPEN three point shots. Paris doesn't have a good jumper from outside. Brown can't hit free throws so I am not sure how he is hitting 3s. Bradley is getting run off the line nearly every possession.
I love cal fans but I really do believe that so many real world math wiz's end up getting blinded by stats and not really focusing on the REASONS for some of those number. Data sometimes without context is just noise.
The real concern is that we do NOT have Pac12 caliber talent. Until that changes we are what we are.
Dude. No need to be rude.......
Not saying he doesn't know his stuff, but in what universe is "oh this is dumb. Do you WATCH the games?" not rude? C'mon CB49; you don't need to defend that kind of language
Yeah I was slightly rude BUT these takes frustrate me (and they are all too common at Cal - for reasons I can not begin to understand). It says "well it is just coaching...." that somehow some scheme (or some offensive game plan) can make up for a talent gap that is pretty clear based on the eyeball test. And I PERSONALLY do not believe that pointing out a talent gap is somehow "attacking our players.". They very much have worked their asses off to perform at the level they have this season and deserve props.
But we have THREE kids that have ANY outside shot. One (Grant) has a slow release. He is easy to defend. You can go under screens and still recover because his release is still slow for P5. Maybe getting better. Maybe just decisiveness. But regardless it is SLOW and so getting him open looks is hard. KK just has limited minutes and it is hard to know whether, over the course of a full season playing 20+ minutes a game whether he continues to shoot well and with starting defenders. Jury out. And course there is Matt B. who gets double teamed and trapped and run off the line.
What these posts do which irritate me is blame the coaches for scheme rather than lean into the issues of recruiting, having a higher standard for athletes than the rest of the conference and somehow buy into the myth of movies like Hoosiers that all we need is a coach and like Hickery High we can win it all.
Cal needs p5 level players to compete. We play UCLA, ZONa, Oregon every year. Usually up to 6 times. Lets not forget the criminal enterprise known as USC. If you want to WIN we have to at least have talent that MIGHT be able to crack their roster. That is the goal for Fox, not somehow running more double screens for guys like Paris who is shooting under 25% from 3.
"What these posts do which irritate me is blame the coaches for scheme rather than lean into the issues of recruiting, having a higher standard for athletes than the rest of the conference and somehow buy into the myth of movies like Hoosiers that all we need is a coach and like Hickery High we can win it all."
There can be multiple issues on one team, and just because I didn't spend time talking about Cal's recruiting and retention issues in this post doesn't mean I don't think they very much exist. And like I noted in the article itself, I don't think that Cal's shot selection issues are a magic fix to this year's problems. But I think they illustrate a weakness in offensive coaching that has been a consistent feature of Mark Fox's style for . . . well, his entire tenure as a head coach, and I think that's worth talking about too.
I highly doubt anyone here disagrees with the fact that we could use better recruited talent, and I thought this post noted the loss of three talented players from last year’s team creating the NEED for an assessment like this until higher level recruits can be brought on board. The beauty of this blog is that you can add your informed perspective and have a civil discussion about it. I appreciate your recognition of tone. Go Bears!
He must be new here. Or just a lot of pent up frustration to take it out on an analysis post...
Yeah, I didn’t really read the article as blaming the coaches, or a suggestion that we don’t need a major talent upgrade. The point I gathered is that our system isn’t exactly leaning into the way basketball has evolved and continues to evolve, and I think it’s a fair question to ask whether it’s a product of our personnel (which admittedly isn’t very good — though I will say the one documented way for less talented teams to beat more talented teams is to hike the variance by taking MORE threes, not fewer threes) or a product of a coach who has basically played like this his entire career.
Either way, do we really need to be calling people dumb? Especially people that anybody who has read this blog and it’s predecessor for several years should be able to easily discern is not dumb?
1. Yes, I have watched games. 16 of the 18 conference games, specifically, which roughly matches how much Cal basketball I've watched since, I dunno, 2009.
2. I disagree that lack of talent/athleticism is the ONLY reason Cal isn't taking more 3s. For just one example, Cal's rate of attempting 3 pointers in conference play vs. non-con play is virtually identical.
3. Washington State, a team roughly as talented/athletic as Cal (maybe less so!), is currently 126th in the country and 2nd in the conference in 3 point rate. They're a bad shooting team from everywhere, but why is WSU able to get three point shots off?
4. Do you believe that creating 3 point shots is a focal point of the Mark Fox offense? Do you believe that nearly every previous Mark Fox coached team had significantly below average athleticism such that they were unable to get off 3 point shots?
#2 - that is because we had less talent than about 1/2 of our OOC opponents. We really, in terms of talent, are that bad.
#3 - Because Washington, while a bad shooting team, has guys that CAN hit them. Elerby, Boton and Robinson have about 63% of their attempts and are not THAT bad from the arc. It is the rest of the team that shoots woeful and probably shouldn't. BTW - Elerby woudl be our best player.
#4a. Well....that is hard to answer because the offense isn't designed to get Paris Austin open to brick a three. Nor should it. Grant is open ALL THE TIME, he just is too slow to get it off (and lacks confidence to do so). We definately don't run a lot of down screens - but I also think that is, with a short bench, Fox hasn't been able to run a ton of motion _AND_ our guys don't actually shoot very well coming off the curl or down screen - Matt likes to have the rock in his hands with his step back and grant is a two feet planted in cement guy before letting it fly. South is open on the ball reversals and can't hit the side of a barn. As noted, we set a TON of screens up top that if we had a stretch four would be fantastic in a pick and pop.
#4b). His WOlfpack teams generally shot the rock relatively well and at a decent if not abnormally high rate.
#4c). Some of this is also by design. No three = fewer long rebounds and thus fewer fast breaks. Compare that statistic - we are limiting run outs to a huge degree. And that is by design - when this team wins it wins by making the game ugly - fewer possesions, long clock, few fast breaks, limit TO's up top.
I don't disagree that the PROGRAM needs better outside shooters and needs to understand that is the direction of the game. I don't think Fox doesn't know that. But this team lacks shooters and I am not sure Fox is to blame. Lets revisit next March - both as we will see what we have AND know what is coming in for year three on the recruiting side. If we continue to brick it up we can resurrect the post.
"Grant is open ALL THE TIME, he just is too slow to get it off (and lacks confidence to do so)."
I've seen Mark Fox get on him, like literally screaming in his face right after removing him from the game, for hunting for his shot. He had taken 2-3 3s that he missed and they weren't that well defneded. It seems like Grant goes through stretches where he isn't looking for his shot, even when he's wide open, to move the ball around.
FWIW, Fox's Nevada teams didn't ever shoot 3s at an average rate even for that period of basketball - his teams ranged from 217th to 330th in the nation in 3 point attempt rate.
Also FWIW, I wish I had focused in the article more on taking fewer of the obviously bad shots (long 2 point jumpers) rather than the type of shots Cal should be trying to create instead, though I still maintain that there are ways to create more 3 point shot opportunities.
Thank you. You CAN get long rebounds. But MANY games cal isn't crashing the boards. Frankly kudos to Kelly for getting as many O boards as he has - really a place of improvement. Instead, Cal almost only sends 2 to the boards and rotates back three. A huge point of emphasis is not to let people run on them.
And one of the things that doesn't show up in most metrics is that you want to limit breaks because of how easy it is to score with them _AND_ how it can swing momentum. Nothing like a monster dunk to rattle the opponent - especially at home. The Bears main way of winning this year has been to hold teams to the 60s.
On the latter point, I think it would just be a matter of comparing effective FG% to 2 pt FG%, and see which is higher. In most instances, eFG% is going to be higher, which is why the number of 3’s taken at all levels of basketball has gone up dramatically.
Great math here! Loved this look at offensive choices that I hadn’t considered before.
Very interesting analysis. I'd had a feeling all season that something was wrong strategically with the offense but couldn't put my finger on the problem. This makes it crystal clear. Also, it appears (as you comment) that we are not trying very hard to get good three point looks. The OSU zone for example stifled our outside shooting. Even Bradley could not get open. Then, if we go inside we have a tendency to miss short shots and layups.
We don't really have a credible offensive threat in the low post, which really limits the ceiling of this O, IMO...especially when you're not exactly running an up-tempo system that leads to easy buckets (i.e. a typical Mark Fox O). The math is the math - as always, I agree with Nick's analysis...it's all right there to a certain degree in the numbers, and makes total sense. I also agree with Erik tho - take the stats out of it entirely, and Cal just doesn't pass the eye test. Kareem's struggles are a real bummer...he is shooting at about a 30% clip beyond the arc, after being a career >36% shooter from 3 at TXAM-CC...that hurts. Sure, it's just a bucket or 2 a night, and that may not be the difference between a W or an L, but when your 2 guard consistently misfires on open looks within the framework of the set, or worse yet doesn't even take the shot, it leaves a big hole. Couple that with the fact that our primary points really can't shoot from a distance, it spells trouble. At the end of the day, while coaches need to put players in a position to make plays, the players still need to execute. We just don't have the horses right now....
I’ve decided it’s time I start playing again. One thing; coach stays, I stay; coach goes, I go......
He's clearly our best player, and is double teamed the whole game, every game.