Around The Pac-10: CGB's All-Conference Picks
The Pac-10 regular season wrapped up without too much on the court drama. Off the court drama? We had that in spades! But Arizona wrapped up the regular season championship by taking care of the Oregon schools at home, and the L.A. and Washington schools beat each other up in the Northwest to leave NCAA at-large bids appropriately murky. As expected.
But maybe we can drum up a little controversy by naming a few All Pac-10 Teams? Ohio Bear, Avinash and I collaborated to come up with first, second, defense and freshmen teams, and there wasn't much disagreement amongst the pollsters. Perhaps, having generally seen the same games, we Cal fans have similar appreciations for certain players. Or perhaps the best players have separated themselves that there's going to be a high level of consensus amongst fans, media and coaches.
We'll start, of course, with the five best players in the conference:
First Team
Point guard: Isaiah Thomas (Washington)
Guard: Jorge Gutierrez (California)
Guard/forward: Klay Thompson (Washington St.)
Forward: Derrick Williams, Player of the Year (Arizona)
Forward/center: Nikola Vucevic (USC)
Thoughts on the first team: Well, that was easy. CGB was 100% unanimous with this foursome, and I'd imagine that the only selection that's particularly debatable is Jorge. But we're not shameless homers peerless talent evaluators! In any case, Jorge's play during the conference season was phenomenal, and the Pac-10 is hardly overflowing with talented guards this year. I was particularly impressed with Jorge's versatility. He won games for Cal as a scorer (vs. UCLA), as a distributor (vs. Oregon St.) and as a defender (vs. everyone).
The choice of Williams as player of the year was also unanimous, an easy decision after he authored perhaps the most efficient offensive seasons in Pac-10 history. In a different year Klay Thompson's growth into a more complete player at both ends of the floor might have earned him the title, but Williams wasn't going to be denied.
Isaiah Thomas played so brilliantly in certain games that I wondered halfway through the season if he might end up as player of the year. Ultimately a few weaker performances during Washington's iffy stretch run cost him, but he was still the best point guard in a weak year for distributors out west.
Nikola Vucevic, however, held off a number of deserving post players, but his importance to an incredibly thin USC team cannot be understated. It's hard to believe, but Vucevic played 2nd highest percentage of available minutes of any Pac-10 player despite playing a role very prone to foul trouble. Oh and by the way, he also averaged a double double.
Second Team
Point guard: Malcolm Lee (UCLA)
Guard: Jeremy Green (Stanford)
Guard/forward: Matthew Bryan-Amaning (Washington)
Forward: Harper Kamp (California)
Forward/center: Joevan Catron (Oregon)
Also receiving consideration: Josh Smith (UCLA), Jared Cunningham (Oregon St.)
Now here's where things get a little dicier. Jeremy Green, Harper Kamp and Matthew Bryan-Amaning were unanimous picks, but I think I could have been talked out of each player on this team. I was very tempted to pick Allen Crabbe over Jeremy Green - In conference play Crabbe averages a similar number of points per game despite taking fewer shots, plus Crabbe has a better assist, turnover and defensive rebounding rate. But ultimately I decided that Green's performance as the obvious go-to-guy and only true threat on a struggling Stanford team raised the level of difficulty enough to justify the pick. Plus I didn't want to go too homer-crazy. Flag away, Cal fans!
Picking the forwards was a challenge, and we all ended up stretching the boundaries of the team by putting three true post players on the second team. And I also think you could make a compelling argument for DeAngelo Casto, Josh Smith, Reeves Nelson and Alex Stephenson, all of whom probably had better years than Jeremy Green. It was a great year for Pac-10 big men, but there’s only so much room.
Avi was incredulous when I suggested that perhaps Josh Smith was a second teamer, rightly pointing out that nobody that plays just over 20 minutes a game can earn a spot. I’ll admit at wondering what UCLA might have achieved if they could have kept Smith on the floor more, because he was usually the best player on the court when he entered games. His offensive rebounding was an absolute game-changer, and when he got the ball anywhere near the block it was over. But his inability to avoid foul trouble, lack of college level conditioning or Ben Howland’s refusal to play him more (I’m not sure which) cost him. If he doesn’t go pro, look out next year.
Ultimately it’s the ability to score that set the three post players we picked apart from the rest. Bryan-Amaning may have unfairly benefitted from receiving the ball in perfect position to score time and time again from Isaiah Thomas, but he still had to convert the basket and he was a monster on the glass at both ends. Catron transformed himself into a versatile low-post scorer and led Oregon to perhaps the most surprisingly successful season in the Pac-10 this year. And Harper Kamp displayed the most savvy arsenal of moves to compensate for his comparatively less impressive athleticism while spear-heading Cal’s suddenly lethal Pac-10 offense.
All-Defense Team
Point guard: Malcolm Lee (UCLA)
Guard: Jorge Gutierrez (California)
Guard/forward: Venoy Overton (Washington)
Forward: Marcus Simmons, Defensive Player of the Year (USC)
Forward/center: DeAngelo Casto (Washington St.)
Also receiving consideration: Nikola Vucevic (USC) , Jared Cunningham (Oregon St.)
Marcus Simmons was a unanimous selection as the defensive player of the year, a just reward for a player tasked with shutting down the opponent’s best player each night, from point guards to small forwards. For a USC team starved of offensive production it speaks volumes that Simmons gets so much playing time despite a very limited offensive game. He’s as close as the conference gets to a shut down defender.
DeAngelo Casto was the other unanimous pick, not a surprise for WSU’s roving menace in the paint. Casto has had a variety of highlight reel blocks against the Bears over the past two years, so I’d expect Cal fans to rate his defense quite highly.
But when it comes to the guards it was a bit more controversial – Lee, Overton, Gutierrez and Jared Cunningham all received an equal number of votes, and there are good arguments for and against all four. Ultimately, the tie-breaker went against Cunningham, the Pac-10’s leader in steals. However, it’s pretty much a given that whichever player running the top of Oregon St.’s 1-3-1 zone will rack up tons of steals – it’s what the defense is designed to do. So do we credit that player for successfully running the system? Perhaps, but it should also be noted that Oregon St.’s defense was pretty awful this year, allowing the highest shooting percentage in the conference. If Cunningham is getting credit for benefiting statistically from a system, then he should also be evaluated on that system’s failure to produce.
However, the same could be said for Jorge, who played his usual excellent defense on a Cal defense that was rather porous for most of the season. However, I think Jorge gets the pick in part because he already proved his abilities last year, and because on the rare occasions that Cal got to play man-to-man he demonstrated that he’s still a defensive terror.
Lee gets lots of credit from Cal fans for shutting down Allen Crabbe down in Westwood, though he didn’t have much success when he was switched over to try to shut down a red-hot Jorge Gutierrez. Nevertheless, Lee has clearly embraced Ben Howland’s signature tough man-to-man style and is a deserving selection.
Venoy Overton still plays excellent perimeter defense and still fouls way too much, but at this point you just have to shrug and realize that, for better or for worse, that’s the system that Washington runs, and they are willing to trade bad shots and steals for a few free throws.
All-Freshman Team
Point guard: Maurice Jones (USC)
Guard: Terrance Ross (Washington)
Guard/forward: Allen Crabbe, Freshman of the Year (California)
Forward: Dwight Powell (Stanford)
Forward/center: Joshua Smith (UCLA)
Also receiving consideration: Anthony Brown (Stanford)
Beyond Allen Crabbe and Josh Smith it wasn’t a stellar year for Pac-10 freshmen, but there are a number of players who look to be long term presences in the league. Ultimately Stanford’s Dwight Powell edged out his teammate Anthony Brown for the final spot. You could make a solid argument for both, as they had similar levels of production from different spots on the floor. I briefly considered adding Richard Solomon, who arguably was playing at a higher level at the end of the season, but he ultimately didn’t play enough minutes to earn a spot.
Terrance Ross would have been a shoo-in pick and perhaps freshman of the year if he played on a team that could have given him starter minutes. But he still acquitted himself well at Washington and will likely be a dangerous offensive player next year after the graduation of Venoy Overton. And if all freshman team was awarded based on one performance C.J. Wilcox might have grabbed a spot for his absurd 24 point explosion against UCLA.
Crabbe, Smith, and Maurice Jones were unanimous picks, and I’d bet you can all guess who won Freshman of the Year. Jones was the only freshman point guard getting meaningful playing time, but he did an impressive job running the show at USC and did much more than earning his spot by default. Crabbe and Smith played well enough to earn consideration for second team all Pac-10 honors.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sean Miller was voted Coach of the Year after directing the Wildcats to the regular-season title in just his second season.
Meh. Not undeserved or anything, but Monty deserved it more.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 7, 2011 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed
I’m seriously not all that impressed with the job Sean Miller did. I guess if this is a reward for recruiting he should win, but isn’t it COACH of the Year and not RECRUITER of the Year?
But I have to admit, I do enjoy Arizona being good again.
6 1st round draft picks, 2 Super Bowl Champions and counting
by Another Successful Tedford QB on Mar 7, 2011 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
Flagged
I couldn’t care less if Arizona became a perpetual cellar-dweller. Same with UCLA.
But yeah, Miller seems to be more of a recruiter than a coach. Nationally, the same can be said about Thad Matta, in my opinion.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 7, 2011 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
Solid UCLA and Arizona teams are good for our conference
These are by far the Pac’s most storied franchises and always seem to represent us well on a national scale. Sure UCLA copies everything from Cal and Arizona accepts anyone who can write their name on an application, but I still don’t hate them (the majority of my hate is saved for the private schools: U$C and ’Furd).
I’m just glad that it seems the P10 is getting back on track. I’m sick of listening to my B12 friends talking trash all the time. I constantly have to point to the NBA as the main reason our conference has been sucking…
6 1st round draft picks, 2 Super Bowl Champions and counting
by Another Successful Tedford QB on Mar 7, 2011 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
I respectfully disagree
I know history isn’t entirely irrelevant, and especially in college basketball people automatically think of certain “blueblood” programs that are perennial powerhouses. (You know what I’m talking about – Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Syracuse, UConn, Michigan St., UCLA, Kentucky, etc…).
But I don’t necessarily buy into the notion that these schools ALWAYS need to be on top. History is nice and all, but if Cal and Oregon, for example, suddenly had top-10 kinda basketball teams for several years in a row, the conference would still have the same credibility, but with a new tradition and new names at the top. There’s no specific reason why it HAS to be UCLA and Arizona; it’s just that they’ve been successful in the past. That’s not etched in stone though, and it doesn’t have to be.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 7, 2011 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
It doesn’t have to be, but we’d have to go through decades more of turmoil and lack of credibility to reach that stage. There are so many teams in the Pac-10 that have been so historically bad that we need our powerhouse programs to pull through year in and year out while the rest of the teams go through their seasons. Otherwise, we’re going to be going through a lot of seasons with only two teams in the dance. This is bad, by the way, because it means nobody outside the conference champion and the conference tourney champion get to go.
Had the Pac-10 not gone through that down period — that we’re still in, by the way — and had Arizona and UCLA kept up their level of excellence in basketball, if nothing else, Cal may actually have a real shot at reaching the dance this year thanks to our schedule. As it is, though, people are still doubting us as a conference and it will take UCLA and Arizona taking it to the house in March in order for the rest of the nation to realize that the conference might be back a little earlier than expected.
Seriously? Decades of turmoil???
I really don’t buy that. I mean, all it takes is a couple of Elite 8/Final Four appearances in a row and then BOOM!, we’ve got credibility. On top of that, if we keep scheduling tough opponents and show we can beat them, that also lends credibility. If we’d beaten Kansas, or Notre Dame this year that would’ve gone a long way.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 7, 2011 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, I exaggerated, but you get the point. We would need to prove that not only can the best teams beat Kansas when they’re good, but that the top of the Pac-10 can beat these top ranked teams on a consistent basis. It’s a much easier feat when you have at least 1 or 2 teams that are traditionally great because of the branding that comes with power house teams. It’s far easier to sell that UA/UCLA are great teams in any given year than it is to sell that Oregon State is a great team and will be back… and that while they’re down, Washington’s going to be great, then Cal, etc. If you beat the Kevin Love UCLA team, it doesn’t cheapen the victory because it’s a given that that team is a NC contender and people respect you for beating them. If you beat the JR/TR/PC Cal team, even as Pac-10 champions, there tends to be a sense of doubt because of the lack of any real history of excellence — as a matter of fact, it’s just too far back in history to consider anymore. If we want to transition into a deeper conference that has rotational stability (if that makes any sense), it has to be earned. Just beating top teams isn’t going to be enough, we’re going to have to be able to find a team that can beat Kansas every year, and I don’t think the Pac-10 can do that unless our powerhouses come back. Square one.
Well, sure, if we randomly cycle through teams having good years, then that’ll hurt (like your OSU, then UW, then Cal example).
What I’m saying is, we can have new powerhouse teams. It might take a few years before they’re fully recognized, but it won’t take that long. It doesn’t need to be UCLA and Arizona. I want Cal to be the premier team in the Pac-12, and aspiring to third fiddle behind UCLA and Arizona isn’t gonna cut it. So, who cares what their reputations are. I want Cal to win 25+ games a season, go to the Tourney every year, make the Final Four, have a shot at the championship, etc… And I don’t see why we can’t do that, no matter what UCLA or Arizona are doing, no matter what some idiots on the East Coast might think of the Pac-12.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 7, 2011 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
You don't see why Cal can't do that?
Wow. Those must be some homer-shaped glasses you’ve got on there, friend.
The only relatively “new” power teams I can think of in recent years are from schools that have enormous athletic budgets (OSU, Florida, Texas). If you think Cal is going to match those teams, well, all I can say is that you’re setting yourself up for some heavy-duty disappointment.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
What? We have an excellent, hall-of-fame caliber coach, decent facilities, and a great academic reputation. If we can get guys of Allen Crabbe’s caliber, why can’t we compete year in and year out?
I’m not saying it’ll happen, but is it my hope/dream? Yes. Should we be satisfied with second- or third- fiddle in our own conference? No.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 7, 2011 9:28 PM PST up reply actions
I just don’t think the nature of our school is very friendly towards athletic prominence on this level. Yeah, we’re great at rugby and track, but the REAL money makers (football and basketball) take a lot more commitment and dedication to become a powerhouse in. So much so that many of the people backing our school will begin to question our motives and priorities, especially with the current state of fiscal affairs. Yeah, we have great coaches on both sides who bring in great players, but we don’t have the history and/or commitment to continue this for decades. Once Tedford and Monty leave, we don’t really have the name power to bring in any other amazing coaches; everyone understands that Cal as a university is academics first, sports second. And I think that’s fine. I’m happy with a good team that will make surprising runs into the post season as our players develop. I don’t feel the need for us to be a team that’s a Final Four contender year in and year out. I think it’s much more fun to watch our team fluctuate and watch the young kids grow than to become a UCLA/Kansas/Kentucky/etc. where these kids come in ready to dominate, play for a year or two, and then leave.
but we don’t have the history and/or commitment to continue this for decades.
Success begets success. We have to start somewhere. We won the conference last year, and I don’t see why we couldn’t win it again next year, considering MSF is the only guy we’re losing this time around. Basketball is profitable. I don’t really know why you’re saying we don’t have the resources to be successful. We’re not Oregon or USC in terms of our athletic funding, but compared to most of the conference, including UCLA and Arizona, we absolutely have the resources to be consistently competitive.
We don’t need a bunch of one-and-done players, but aside from Kentucky, most schools don’t rely primarily on those types of players. You’re presenting a false dichotomy, I think. It’s not just a choice between being a second-tier program and having a team full of one-and-done players.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 8, 2011 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
Eh, not sure I agree it takes very long to earn respect in the college basketball landscape. Plenty of Big East teams have earned it quickly – Louisville, WVU, Pitt, Villanova. The Big 10 has seen some turnover at the top, Purdue has gotten plenty of respect this year, for instance. Put 2-3 more good years together and all of a sudden they’re a well respected program.
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2011 7:23 AM PST up reply actions
That’s what I’m sayin’! :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 8, 2011 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
It's hard to separate out the two
For instance, suppose coach A takes a less “talented” player who he thinks will work harder or better fit his system. Coach B takes the more “talented” guy. Each team finishes with the same performance.
Does that make coach A a “better coach”? Yes, he did take the less “talented” player and achieve the same results, but the whole reason he took the guy was that he fit into coach A’s system.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I think it’s quite rare that Coach A will turn down a more talented player if he can get him, unless there are HUGE HUGE concerns about attitude or other side issues. It’s usually not the coach that turns down the talented player, it’s the talented player that picks a flashy program or coach. Coaches generally want as much talent as they can get. So, Coach A might not be as good a recruiter as Coach B, but he makes up for it by being a better developer of talent.
So, if Coach A had Coach B’s team, he’d probably do better than Coach B.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 7, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
But you can’t separate out the fact that Coach A was actually able to get the more talented players from the fact that Coach B schemed better with the players he actually had. At least not in college basketball. Both are critical aspects of being a college basketball coach.
On a completely different note, among other reasons for believing Miller is a perfectly defensible choice for COY is the fact that the margin for error to finish first in the conference is so much smaller than it is for finishing 4th. It’s a lot harder to do, and Miller did it.
Hector Sanchez: Underrated. Fighting body bias since the 2009 off season. I still love you, son, even if you're fat.
It’s hard to separate out, but I don’t think it’s impossible to have a perception. I think Monty is absolutely awesome at developing talent. Look at how raw Jorge was, how far Brandon Smith has come, how he turned Randle into a Player of the Year. Players really blossom and develop under Monty. Yeah, those guys have talent, otherwise they wouldn’t be playing D-I basketball, but if you look at the improvement from year to year, and I think you have to give a fair amount of credit to Monty for helping these guys make the most of it.
As for Miller, NOBODY is saying “he’s not a defensible choice”. Of course he is. The issue is, “who did a more impressive coaching job?” I believe Arizona was picked for second place, pre-season, after Washington. Washington played more poorly than expected, and Arizona played a bit better than expected, and Arizona came away with the conference championship. Good for them.
Cal was picked SEVENTH place in the conference, we lost eight players off last years team (six of which were pretty important contributors), and we lost a major recruit mid-season this year, and yet we finished fourth, and were just a few points away from winning several more games. I think Monty’s accomplishment is more impressive than Miller’s, and it doesn’t detract at ALL from Miller’s accomplishment to say that.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Mar 7, 2011 3:12 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with you about Monty. I think he deserves COY precisely for the reasons you say. The improvement of our talent has been astronomical.
My point was that the number of things that have to go right to finish first and the number of things that can’t go wrong is really high. Good coaches navigate through that and Miller did. Some things went right for Monty and some things didn’t, which is why we finished 4th. Law of averages, or whatever, it’s a much more likely outcome, and therefore much, much easier to achieve.
That he finished 4th with no proven starters who could lead the team is why he should be COY. Remember, Jorge turned the ball over way too much and never averaged more than 5.5 points per game. MSF was 30 lbs overweight, constantly in foul trouble. Kamp looked like he might have to take a medical retirement at some points last year, and never averaged more than 5 ppg and 3 rpg. Monty made them into all-Pac-10 level performers when there was no reasonable expectation that any of them would make all-league.
Hector Sanchez: Underrated. Fighting body bias since the 2009 off season. I still love you, son, even if you're fat.
Just an observation
My point was that the number of things that have to go right to finish first and the number of things that can’t go wrong is really high.
This cuts in favor of Monty winning it last year. He didn’t.
That he finished 4th with no proven starters who could lead the team is why he should be COY.
This cuts in favor of Monty winning it this year. He didn’t.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
I think it was Ernie Kent
6 1st round draft picks, 2 Super Bowl Champions and counting
by Another Successful Tedford QB on Mar 8, 2011 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
Herb Sendek
Hector Sanchez: Underrated. Fighting body bias since the 2009 off season. I still love you, son, even if you're fat.
The actual first team All Pac-10 (which has 10 players on it)
Matthew Bryan-Amaning WASH F Sr. 6-9 240 London, England (South Kent School, Conn.)
Jeremy Green STAN G Jr. 6-4 198 Austin, Texas (Bowie HS)
Jorge Gutierrez CAL G Jr. 6-3 195 Chihuahua, Mexico (Findlay College Prep, Nev.)
Tyler Honeycutt UCLA F So. 6-8 183 Los Angeles, Calif. (Sylmar HS)
Malcolm Lee UCLA G Jr. 6-4 195 Riverside, Calif. (John W. North HS)
Reeves Nelson UCLA F So. 6-8 235 Modesto, Calif. (Modesto Christian HS)
Isaiah Thomas WASH G Jr. 5-9 185 Tacoma, Wash. (South Kent School, Conn.)
Klay Thompson WSU G Jr. 6-6 202 Ladera Ranch, Calif. (Santa Margarita HS)
Nikola Vucevic USC F Jr. 6-10 240 Bar, Montenegro (Stoneridge Prep)
Derrick Williams ARIZ F So. 6-8 240 La Mirada, Calif. (La Mirada HS)
The difference between the actual picks and the CGB 1st/2nd team picks are that Reeves Nelson and Tyler Honeycutt are in and Harper Kamp and Joevan Catron are out.
Kamp and Catron made the official All Pac-10 second team
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.



























































