The torture of competitive basketball

Cal's men and women's basketball teams play and lose very similar games

On Thursday night, Cal took on the Bulldogs. It was a thrilling, back and forth game that could have gone either way. At one point, the Bears had the ball with a chance to take the last shot, but Cal ultimately lost in overtime.

On Saturday morning, Cal took on the Bulldogs. It was a thrilling, back and forth game that could have gone either way. At one point, the Bears had the ball with a chance to take the last shot, but Cal ultimately lost in double overtime.

Two similar games, two similar results, and two very different reactions. In the immediate aftermath of Cal WBB’s loss to #23 Gonzaga, this was my reaction:

Meanwhile, while Cal MBB was fighting in a tight game late with Butler, my feelings were quite different:

The difference between both games, and the status of both programs, is pretty clear. Charmin Smith is in her 5th year as head coach at Cal and while her Bears have had many near miss losses to top 25/tournament quality teams, they have invariably fallen short.

The men are obviously at the beginning of their rebuild attempt, at a point in time when merely playing a competitive game against solid competition is a sign of progress.

So let’s look back at both games and assess where each team is.

Butler 97, Cal 90, double overtime

Two things worth pointing out immediately.

1: It was incredible that Cal forced this game into two extra periods. With just over 5 minutes left in regulation Butler held the ball up 10 points. Per Kenpom, Cal’s win probability from that point was 1.5%. But the Bears went on a 15-5 run to close out regulation, obviously highlighted by Jalen Cone’s last second game-tying three.

2: Cal’s 3-6 record is notably unlucky relative to how they have played:

Luck: deviation in winning percentage between a team’s actual record and their expected record

Ranking 356th out of 362 in luck is not what you want*, but that’s what happens when you lose six games by single digits, including three 3 point losses and two overtime losses. Regardless, at this point in the rebuild it’s better to play well and lose close to solid teams than it would be to play badly but beat bad teams.

Cal has now taken two teams that are roughly equivalent to mid-tier Pac-12 teams (SDSU and Butler) into overtime. I don’t want to dismiss bad losses to UOP and Montana St., but I think these more recent games are more likely to be representative of what Cal can do in conference play, both because Cal was healthier and because Cal’s brand new roster had some time to play together.

And what we saw against Butler was a good team with some flaws. The strengths are obvious and revolve around the individual talents of the players Madsen has brought in. The instinctual rebounding and all-around toughness of Fardaws Aimaq. The smooth attacking ability of Jaylon Tyson. The ability to get red hot from deep of Jalen Cone. Keonte Kennedy’s instinct as a defender and finishing as a slasher.

The weakness is getting these guys, and the rest of Cal’s roster, to play coherent team basketball. There were absolutely moments of that, but also moments of miscommunication that led to bad turnovers or easy Butler baskets. If you watched this group without knowing anything, and are told that most of them didn’t play with each other last year, you’d nod in understanding.

So I want to leave you with this last point of optimism. Mark Madsen has a pattern as a head coach: early season struggles, late season success. Here are his team’s pre-season Kenpom rating, their season low Kenpom rating, and their end-of-season Kenpom rating:

2020-21 Utah Valley: 282, 299 (on Dec 15), 199

2021-22 Utah Valley: 221, 235 (on Nov 15), 111

2022-23 Utah Valley: 128, 148 (on Nov. 20), 64

This season, Cal started at 146, and plunged all the way down to 191 on November 22 after losing to UTEP. Cal has climbed up to 166th since, and I fully expect continued improvement as Cal gets healthier, as the roster gains chemistry and experience together, and as Madsen further installs his style of play.

Will the improved play I’m anticipating actually result in wins? That’s harder to say; Cal could improve to be the 100th best team in the country and finish 11th in the Pac-12 and lose a bunch more close games. That would still make this the best Cal MBB team in six years by a wide, wide margin.

*I find that many people get reflexively angry when I discuss the impact of luck in sports, so I’ll just use this space to note that Mark Madsen’s Utah Valley teams were not notably lucky or unlucky, and there is no evidence to suggest that there is something about him as a coach that would cause him to lose all of his close games. Cal’s close game losses thus far are just random chance.

Gonzaga 78, Cal 70

Note: Cal WBB did knock off Nevada on Sunday, 76-49*. Nevada is likely a sub-200 team nationally and as a result I’m focusing on the more relevant Gonzaga game that might project Cal’s ability to compete in Pac-12 play.

Gonzaga was fresh off an 18(!!) point win over Stanford that earned them a top 25 ranking, and although Stanford was missing one of their stars for that game, it’s still a clear indication that this was going to be Cal’s toughest non-conference challenge.

And while I really want to be encouraged by this game, there’s a combination of stats that makes that tough for me:

Cal turnovers: 14; Gonzaga turnovers: 7
Cal offensive rebounds: 6; Gonzaga offensive rebounds: 18

Cal badly lost the shot volume contest - thanks to turnovers and rebounds, Gonzaga was able to attempt a whopping 16 more shots and five more free throws than the Bears. It was miraculous that Cal was able to force overtime.

The Bears were able to do so because Gonzaga shot a mediocre 29% from three and 41% from two. I was encouraged by what I saw from Cal’s defense - this was not simply a case of one team missing makeable shots. The Bears employed an aggressive hedge on screens that seemed to put Gonzaga out of sorts on multiple possessions.

But a massive shot volume disadvantage is really tough to overcome, and ultimately Gonzaga was able to make their extra shots count. More concerningly, this was the exact problem that plagued Cal last year, and despite plenty of personnel turnover the problem hasn’t gotten any better. Cal is allowing teams to rebound 33% of their missed shots, which is actually worse than last year’s 31.5 mark, despite the fact that Cal has played a pretty soft schedule and hasn’t entered Pac-12 play yet.

Cal did play without Claudia Langarita, Mia Mastrov, and Ioanna Krimili, all of whom would be expected to contribute on both ends. Cal has indicated that both Mastrov and Krimili will return prior to Pac-12 play. I think their return might help Cal in the turnover battle, but neither player has a history as a rebounding difference maker.

I continue to think that, when healthy, Cal’s best strategy in Pac-12 play is going to be bombing away from three. Based on prior history Cal has at least five capable shooters in the rotation and potentially seven or eight. Will all of that shooting be enough to offset Cal’s rebounding deficit, and are there enough bodies to defend the paint in Pac-12 play? We’ll start finding out in a couple weeks.

*Good things from the Nevada game: 12-28 from three! Bad things: Nevada, a team with one player taller than 6’1’’, rebounding 36% of their missed shots.