We will have to agree to disagree. Not sure we even watch the same sport or team if that’s your honest opinion.
I think a change is coming.
- Thread starter lcp3557CATS
- Start date
We will have to agree to disagree. Not sure we even watch the same sport or team if that’s your honest opinion.
If he was 100% today, he was still terrible. I think it made sense to try and bring him back against 14-14 Arkansas, but it clearly did not work. I hope he can find his groove again.
Bradshaw actually gave us some really good minutes for a change.
This team is loaded with talent. Not everyone can store 20+ every game. We scored 111 points, why does it matter who scored how many when we score that much? You're not scoring much more than 111 in a college game, so if Reed had more someone else would have had fewer. It really doesn't matter if the end result is the same.
This is a deep and diverse roster. For the most part, Cal has done a great job managing the roster, playing the right guys at the right time, and keeping everyone happy.
Our seniors, Mitchell and Reeves have started most of the season. Am I missing someone? Walk on don't even start on Senior Day that I recall. And, not sure any of those are starters anyway.
I like having the best bench in the country. It’s a huge advantage. I don’t understand why people want to risk messing with the teams chemistry
You ok man? You seem upset that we have differing opinions. Adding words to my post isn’t cool, either. I would never call someone I don’t even know a name like that.
This has already been statistically proven irrelevant and incorrect. Lineup (not individual) +\- data exist and makes the point you’re trying to disprove.
The score differential at the first subs means nothing without also providing a data point of the +/- after the subs enter until the next substitution. Thats how comparable statistics work no matter how many times you repeat a meaningless data point.
Isolating a single run from a game to try to support a point that unbias whole game/whole season statistical analysis shows to be incorrect is just confirmation bias searching.
The starters also matter much less now that Cal is playing the correct lineups 3/4+ of the game anyways. This was a bigger convo mid season when you had you bad lineups playing single to teen digit minutes and a couple least productive lineups and players getting 20+ minutes. So if even Cal had limited certain guys minutes to almost nothing…maybe you should revisit why you’re dying on a hill that everyone knows is incorrect even the coach you think you’re defending?
All that said, Wagner and Edward both played very very solid games today. Bradshaw had his best showing in months but he’s still behind Z from a production standpoint on both sides of the floor… and Cal correctly played him 10-12 min as a result. So there shouldn’t be many complaints
Last edited:
He had a really encouraging game comparatively to his past performance. That can be true while it simultaneously being true that Z (and even Ugo) provide a more complete game on both ends, provide more rim protection, and are better suited for the physicality of the college game at this point. It won’t happen but I wish Bradshaw would come back and add 20-30lbs bc he will be a force as soon as he can hold his ground
Have we started a lineup of Reed, Dilly, Reeves, Z? The 4 spot can be any of Mitchell, Thiero, or Edwards.
If not, why not? Why are we not starting our best lineup? It’s not just about inserting Reed in there, it’s about the best lineup, which he is certainly part of.
They won’t always be great, but that lineup is light years ahead of our current starters.
It makes 0 sense to not start Reed and then put him into the game 3 minutes into each half and play the rest of the half. Start him and give him a break to catch his breath about halfway through for 2-3 minutes.
I'm not arguing the starting lineup is better than any other lineup. But you're also missing the point that the subs coming in and going on a run is part of the strategy of starting who we do. You let the other team think they got their feet under them and then sub in spark plugs and punch them in the face.
Lineup +/- will show some lineups are better than others. But that's hasn't been the major complaint. The major complaint with the starting lineup has been the starting five always puts us in big holes we spend the rest of the half digging out of. That just isn't true.
I'm not isolating any single run in an single game. But there are ample data points at this point of the subs letting the other team go on a big run. Sometimes runs happen and there's no lineup you can start that guarantees you start fast. Starting slow has been a problem with us for years. It's much less a lineup thing and more a team wide thing. People complained about it last year and the year before that too.
There are a couple combinations of five guys that have worked out really well recently and Cal's leaning on them to end games. But that's also due in large part to Z improving his defense immensely and making it much harder not to play him. I'm glad we have a few killer lineups, I'm not convinced starting them will make us start games or halves any better.
Starting Reed did not help this team start any quicker than any other lineup.
It’s not even about how fast we start. If he is gonna play 35 minutes he should start so those 5 minutes give him rest instead of being at the start of the game.
I don't think anybody would say Bradshaw outplayed Z defensively at any point.
Z 12pts, 9REBS, 1 assist, 1 steal and 2 blocks.
Bradshaw 15pts, 5 rebs, 1 assist and 1 TO.
I know he had a good offensive game and Cal saw an opportunity to start him, Z has been good offensively and defensively. And has never started a single half.
What do you see here to say Bradshaws 1 good game deserves a start over Z?
Z 12pts, 9REBS, 1 assist, 1 steal and 2 blocks.
Bradshaw 15pts, 5 rebs, 1 assist and 1 TO.
That's got to be one of the dumbest things you have posted and buddy that's a hard list to make. Bradshaw hasn't played 4 mins a game for 3 weeks
But he loves his 5 stars smh
He's had probably 2 good halves
He's also been awful just like Bradshaw has.
Good God man, he had one good game out of how many? Z has been steady Eddie, even though he's only played 6 college games with 12 minutes or more. Which would you choose honestly?
If that's such a dumb statement why is Ugo and Edwards starting? More Importantly, why would Cal never use his starting lineup to close out any game this year?
Z has far better court vision shooting and rebounding and passing than the other bigs
I think you're on an island buddy. I don't know what you're drinking. But I think Z has had better than 2 good halves this year. National media and most of are fanbase with disagree with you.
I was talking about everything up to today. Bradshaw was awful but z was as well. Z hasn't been steady at all. Very inconsistent. Yes he is getting better, but to accuse the Coach of playing favorites because a kids d played his ass off in a half is flat out stupid
I'm waiting for it?
Before today's game he had 2/3 good halves of basketball
U are acting as if he's Antonio Reeves scoring 25 every game
I love z, he's gonna be unreal good but he's been awful quite a bit , just like the other centers have
Never more than 21 mins in these.
Today:
Z 20 mins 12pts, 9REBS, 1 assist, 1 steal and 2 blocks. 0 TO
21 mins MISSst 2pts, 4 rebs, 1 steal and 3 blocks. 0 TO
20 mins Bama 18pts, 5 rebs, 4 blocks 1 TO.
Only games he's played more than 3 mins since Zags.
11 mins. 7pts, 3 rebs, 1 block and 1 TO.
Now that's lately in won't even dig up his breakout against GA. Oh why not, 16 mins. 13pts, 5 rebs, 2 assist, 3 blocks and 2 TOs in 1st ever major action.
His +- makes people advocating against him look stupid. But he'll the eye test does that. YOU DO REALIZE HE HAS HAD THE LEAST PLAY OF ALL 3. ONLY 5 GAMES OVER 12 MINS. Dude is the answer and if you can't see it I don't know what to tell you.
Forget about most blocks per mins, best FG%, 3 pt% and FT% of all 3 bigs.
For those that don't understand BB. You want to come out and jump on a team. Especially a bad 500 team at home. You want to take their soul early on and then just lean on them. Not put a lineup together that gives them hope and trades baskets. If you won't end with a team, don't put them out there to break a teams spirit.
I think that's why you see these losers hanging around building confidence early. Is Cal just this stupid?
Seriously people, you jump on teams, especially bad teams at home. You don't let teans build confidence. Arkansas sucks and is chaos. But they have good players and like all the SEC hate Kentucky.
You don't let them build confidence. This is not rocket science. PLEASE GOD MAKE IT STOP! CAL THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
I think that's why you see these losers hanging around building confidence early. Is Cal just this stupid?
Seriously people, you jump on teams, especially bad teams at home. You don't let teans build confidence. Arkansas sucks and is chaos. But they have good players and like all the SEC hate Kentucky.
You don't let them build confidence. This is not rocket science. PLEASE GOD MAKE IT STOP! CAL THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
I agree with the other poster. If the starting lineup is supposedly the best lineup how come we never see it again n game?
Exactly. Many of them have zero clue about that. You’re right.
Didn't watch the first half did ya?
Didn't watch the first half then? Bradshaw had 12 and 3 at half. Z had 2 and 3. As I said. It was Bradshaws first half and Z did 90% of his damage in the 2nd half.
