Christopher, Bears too much for Landry Fields, Other Guys, as Cal Sweeps Cardinal
It wasn't easy, but for just the third* time since 1993, Maples Pavilion was declared "Bear Territory" yesterday.
Oh, and the Bears were also declared "outright, no-doubt-about-it, don't-have-to-share" Pacific-10 Conference Champions. So that feels pretty good too.
Last week's celebration following the Bears' victory over Arizona State was a huge, stirring celebration that capped a two-month-long campaign through treacherous Pac-10 waters. When the confetti finally rained from the rafters of Haas Pavilion, you could sense that Cal fans everywhere eased up on some of the last half-century's worth of tension, surprised and delighted that Cal finally won the big game when they needed to, when everyone expected them to, when the target was squarely on their backs. It was done, it was over, Cal was finally on top again.
So even though Saturday's game was at rival Stanford, even though an outright conference title was still at stake, you could perhaps be excused for expecting a bit of a letdown game from the Bears. Saturday at Maples was not the Bears' finest performance of the season, but it was enough, and you could hardly blame the players themselves for a lack of effort. Shots at times weren't falling, the opposing defense was once keying in on Jerome Randle (with yet another version of a zone defense), Landry Fields once again went off on a one-man mission, and yet...as a team, the Bears found just enough offense to pull away from the Cardinal and secure victory.
Objective observers might be tempted to award 'Player of the Game' to Landry Fields, and looking at his box score line, some of those numbers are hard to argue with - 25 points (over 40% of the Cardinal's total), 12 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 blocked shots and a steal. The man was everywhere on the court yesterday, and not only was he nigh-unstoppable on some occasions, but he was far and away the only reason Stanford had a chance in this game. If your definition of "Most Valuable Player" is "the player whose team would suffer the most if he were removed," then yeah, Fields would be the quintessential MVP.
However, box scores express all sorts of minute, specialized statistics, but only imply the most important statistic of all: wins vs. losses. For all Fields' vaunted heroics, he still missed more shots than he took (10 for 21), missed all four of his 3-pt. attempts, and while he scored more than 40% of his team's points, he used more than 38% of their shot attempts in doing so.
No, if you want a real MVP, the player whose removal would have affected the outcome the most, I can't help but look to Patrick Christopher. Playing in his school-record 139th game, P-Chris provided the boost the Bears need on both ends of the court. He played all but 28 seconds of the game, putting up 23 points of his own on 8 of 18 shooting. He also contributed 7 rebounds, 3 steals, 2 assists and a blocked shot, not to mention some stifling defense of Stanford's Jeremy Green, a dangerous shooter in his own right (who has broken Casey Jacobsen's school record for 3-pointers in a season), who eventually ended up with 13 points but needed 15 shots to get there, and who never really got into a rhythm.
Of course, compiling statistics is all well and good, but it's what you do in crunch time that everyone remembers, and with the game clock winding down, it was Patrick who stepped up to seal the victory. Stanford had not led since the opening minutes, yet they battled back to a 44-all tie in the second half, and while the Bears would retake the lead, the Cardinal just kept hanging around. Landry Fields (who else?) hit a jumper with 3:18 left to pull Stanford within 3, and the longtime Cal fan in me feared that the Bears would choke this one away.
However, the season-ticket holder in me, having watched this team all year, should have known better. On their next offensive possession, Jerome Randle missed two three-pointer attempts, but P-Chris grabbed the first rebound to keep the possession alive, and Boykin grabbed the second then laid it back in for a 5-point Cal lead. Stanford knew it needed to score on their next possession to keep touch with Cal, but Christopher stepped in front of a Jack Trotter pass to steal the ball, then hit a HUGE three-pointer down at the other end. Just like that, it was an 8-point lead with under 2 minutes to play, and Stanford fell into desperation mode. Fouling the Bears and forcing them to hit free throws hasn't been an effective strategy all year, and both Christopher and Randle hit a pair from the charity stripe to keep the game out of reach.
This is different sort of Cal team than they were even four months ago. Mike Montgomery has called this team 'fragile' because they rely so heavily on jump shooting, which can be notoriously streaky, to win games, yet I don't think that they're nearly as fragile as they were even a month ago. I think they play better team defense than they did to start the season, and when shots aren't falling, defensive effort is often the one thing you can control on the court; it's what kept them in games they might have let get away from them earlier in the year (such as at Washington or at USC). When a man gets beat, the help defense is there more reliably, and I think that picks up everyone's game. Moreover, I think this team has learned to run its offense when Jerome Randle isn't scoring; more importantly, I think Randle has learned to keep running the offense even when he has been unable to break down his defender. This team still has the potential to lay an egg (as they did a couple weeks ago at Oregon State), but I'm a lot more encouraged by this team's ability to put together several solid performances in a row than I was in January, and that's something that will serve them well as they enter postseason tournament time.
* Yes, I'm counting the one win by Cal's women's basketball team at Maples, in 2007, over that same stretch. I was fortunate enough to be at both the men's game in 2006 and the women's game in 2007, and let me tell you, declaring Maples Pavilion to be "Bear Territory" is an absolute highlight for a Cal fan's lifetime.
30 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What is most impressive is that...
… Cal has improved over the season despite the lack of bench depth. Hats of Montgomery for this effort. How can he not be Pac-10 CoY?
In other words, Go Bears!
Pac-10 Coach of the Year
I’m going to have to go with Herb Sendek.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 7, 2010 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
CBH
He is definitely my Coach of the Year for turning the powder bruins into a complete and utter disaster.
How can you not love him for that??
Whose Axe?
OUR AXE!
Monty probably should have won it last year, but Sendek deserves it this season in my opinion.
Worst coach this year would be more of a competition – Kent? Howland? Romar?
Howland's is more of a meta-failure (i.e. he seems to have recruited the wrong guys)
I don’t know that he’s really done anything particularly wrong COACHING the current team.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Bruins fans would ask you why that waste of space Drago plays 30 minutes plus.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Mar 7, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
Hmmm.
Drago may be a vile SOB, and primarily in there for offense, but if the Cal game at Pauley was any indication, he was merely a scapegoat. They claimed that as soon as Drago went out, UCLA rallied, and when he came back in, the rally stopped. In fact, he was in for the first half of the rally, and when he came back in, only one of our baskets was at his expense. Go watch it yourself. There was so much hooting and hollering about him on the UCLA board, that’s what I did. And most of the complaining was inaccurate.
Did he recruit the wrong guys? TBH I haven’t followed UCLA closely (and why should I?) but it seemed to me that they were rebuilding.
In other words, Go Bears!
UCLA brought in the #1 recruiting class in the nation a couple years ago and they’re all sophomores now
Jrue Holliday – Good (though not as good as expected) left to NBA after one year
Drew Gordon – Good player, but transferred after one year
Jerime Anderson – Plays plenty, isn’t very good
Malcolm Lee – Plays plenty, isn’t very good
J’mison Morgan – rarely plays
So the best two players of a five man class are gone, and the other three have all underperformed. When you completely wiff on a really important class that was replacing a ton of NBA ready talent, you’re going to take a big dive in the standings.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Malcolm Lee would make a pretty good 2 guard right now, but Howland has been forced to use him at the point (because Jrue Holliday left), and Lee has been miscast and ineffective there. Not sure what’s wrong with Anderson and Morgan — I think perhaps Howland just whiffed on those two.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Lee isn't really a shooting guard though
He has no jumpshot. He’s really more of a sixth-man than a guy with a defined position, sort of an upper-middle-class man’s Venoy Overton.
The other problem is that their recruiting class for this season, while highly rated (1 5*, 3 4*, 1 3*), was five forwards, thus making their roster grotesquely unbalanced by position. This year’s UCLA team basically had 3 guards and 10 forwards. They had to use Mustafa Abdul-Hamid (a walk-on) as a backup guard.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Your definition of MVP would make it literally impossible for any player on the losing side of a game
to ever be the MVP of that game.
That’s ridiculous.
Cal’s the best team in the league, but they should not win any of the individual conference awards this year. CoY should probably be Dawkins for getting 13 wins out of the pile of garbage roster that he ended up with (Sendek is iffy because I feel like a lot of the media’s slagging of that team was just them flatly under-evaluating the talent of ASU’s players). PoY should be Fields, who is clearly the best player in the Pac-10. DPoY is probably Seth Tarver, who’s high on the leaderboard in both steals AND blocks (quite the accomplishment). FoY clearly has to go to Derrick Williams.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Pac-10 Awards Voting
On the blog ballot, I voted for all of those guys except I went with Jerome Randle over Landry Fields and I did choose Herb Sendek.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 7, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
That's a fair criticism
I do think Fields, all by himself, made a huge difference in Stanford’s overall record; they win maybe 1, 2 conference games without him, no? I can’t help but wonder, however, how much Fields would stand out if he were on a better team. For instead, trade him with Washington’s Quincy Pondexter; how do those two teams look now? Does Fields stand out as much if he’s not taking 40% of his team’s shots?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Fields
He wouldn’t stand out as much if he wasn’t taking 40 percent of his team’s shots, but the guy is a beast on the glass and he would still find a way to score.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 7, 2010 3:17 PM PST up reply actions
I mean, there's no real way of knowing
Pondexter has taken fewer shots and scored points at a slightly higher rate on a per-shot basis. However, for one thing, it’s well-known that it’s easier to score higher rate-stats if you use fewer possessions, and for another, Pondexter is playing on an actual team, as opposed to one which has basically three players who are actually threatening enough that you have to seriously guard them.
I think Pondexter would be worse. Can I prove it? No, not really. So perhaps it’s not “clear” as between him and Fields. I think Fields vs. Randle is fairly clear though. Fields’s rebounding and defensive advantages basically dominate that matchup.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
So if I hear you correctly, Tyreke Evans should be considered for the NBA MVP because he’s the best player on any of the crappy teams?
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Mar 7, 2010 5:41 PM PST up reply actions
I know absolutely nothing about the NBA
but I do know a ridiculous straw-man argument when I hear one…
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
by PaulThomas on Mar 7, 2010 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It is interesting that the more Fields scores, the worse his team tends to do. I think they’re like 2-3 when he scores 27 or more and 5-0 when he’s around 15.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Mar 7, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
That sort of perverse relationship between "good things" is not unusual in basketball
Last year’s Cal team did worse when they made more three-pointers, for instance.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
They probably shot more 3-pointers when they were behind.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 8, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
PC, MVP, COY
First, I totally agree that the MVP of the game was Patrick Christopher. Absolutely no doubt. He not only scored, but it was when he did it. When stanford made a big play, PC came right down the court and hit a big shot. When stanford needed a basket at the end, PC stole the ball. When we needed to ice the game, it was PC with the big shot. Then he finished it at the line going 2-2.
Also, everyone always focuses on scoring, but PC took green out of his game. Yeah, green hit some big (deep) 3s, but green was only 5-15 (3-9 from deep) with 1 asst and 1 TO.
As for MVP, Jerome deserves the award. He could force it (like Laundry was doing at the end) and get more stats, but he’s matured enough to work within the framework of the team (he is our PG after all !).
Sendek did a nice coaching job, but that’s just because everyone said he lost 2 NBA draft picks. So what? He had 2 senior and 3 junior starters, and his sixth man was a senior. ASU is more ‘experienced’ than Cal who uses two sophs extensively.
Monty earned COY as he navigated the season with injury after injury, no depth, and an imperfect team. Yeah, people said we had 4 senior starters back, but teams had also figured out how to defend the Bears in the second half of LAST year. Monty had to change things up and squeeze more out of the same players.
Cal vs Stanford game ball to PC in a land slide
POY Randle
COY Monty
Cal Pac 10 Champions
Thank you very much.
Eh
Fields was, by playing the top line of the Stanford zone, primarily responsible for causing Randle to go 2-for-10 from the field.
Think of it this way. Imagine NEITHER of them had played the game. Who wins, and by how much?
You think Stanford is remotely competitive in that game? Yeah, me neither.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
different positions, only 1 game
someone posted on another board field’s top 7 or so scoring games – stanford lost all 7
and his bottom 7 or so scoring games – stanford won all 7
basketball is a team sport.
If you don’t play for the team, and force it to pad your stats, you aren’t the ‘most valuable’ player
this award is not about one game, nor one matchup. they play different positions.
case in point, in the first matchup with stanford, fields scored 20 pts, but was only 9-24 and missed all 5 of his 3s. 2-8 FTs. Also, many of these points were in extended garbage time since Cal won by 26 points. fields did have 10 boards.
Randle was 8-11, including 3-4 from 3 and had 5-6 FTs.
The point is that if you just look at cal vs stanford games, Randle played better in game 1 and fields played better in game 2
but IMHO it doesn’t matter unless they play the same position and went head to head on offense and defense fo the majority of both games. That certainly was not the case

by 



















































