This is not a joke: Klay Thompson named all-Pac-10 first team
by Jeff Nusser on Mar 8, 2010 11:42 AM PST
Email
PrintThe Pac-10 just released its all-conference awards, and in what calls into question the validity of the entire process, Klay Thompson was named to the conference's first team.
Look, I love Klay. I'm very happy for him to get this award, because I'm happy anytime a Cougar wins something, considering how often it seems like we get overlooked. But there is no way on God's green earth that Klay Thompson deserved to be on the first team (or even second team, for that matter) of this conference after his performance over the last 18 games, which is what I thought the criteria was. Sorry.
EDIT: Some of you might be wondering why this is true when a guy averaged nearly 20 points per game. First off, he didn't average that in Pac-10 play, which is supposed to be the criteria for these teams -- he averaged 16.1. Second, raw stats don't tell the whole story. He took more shots than everyone in the conference but Landry Fields, yet could only muster 16 points per game?
That's why his tempo-neutral stats tell the better story. He had the 32nd best effective field goal percentage and 51st overall offensive rating. FIFTY-FIRST! Klay was great at times, but in Pac-10 play -- when you take into account just how many shots he took -- he was probably the least efficient scorer in the conference. There aren't many guys in this league who wouldn't score 16 or more points per game if they took nearly 15 shots a game.
I'm not trying to hate on the guy. I love him. I'm glad he's ours. He's going to challenge for conference player of the year next year. But he didn't deserve to be on that team this year.
However, if we want to talk about people who were correctly recognized, let's talk about DeAngelo Casto making the all-defensive team. Congratulations to him, although I think he should have been on the all-conference second team ahead of Calvin Haynes.
Also, congratulations to Reggie Moore for rightfully being selected to the all-freshman team, although that was kind of a no-brainer.
While we're criticizing the coaches, by the way, how about their choice of a zone defense player (OSU's Seth Tarver) as their defensive player of the year? I know he racked up a ton of steals, but c'mon ... that's like giving the Heisman to a Texas Tech quarterback because he threw 50 touchdowns. Silly.
Complete results after the jump. We'll have our CougCenter all-conference awards in the next couple of days. I can virtually guarantee we will differ significantly in some spots.
PLAYER OF THE YEAR: Jerome Randle, California
FRESHMAN OF THE YEAR: Derrick Williams, Arizona
DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR: Seth Tarver, Oregon State
MOST IMPROVED PLAYER OF THE YEAR: Nikola Vucevic, USC
COACH OF THE YEAR: Herb Sendek, Arizona State
FIRST TEAM
| Name | Pos. | Year | Hometown |
| Ty Abbott, ASU | G | Jr. | Phoenix, ARIZ |
| Patrick Christopher, CAL | G | Sr. | Compton, Calif. |
| Landry Fields, STAN | G/F | Sr. | Long Beach, Calif. |
| Quincy Pondexter, WASH | F | Sr. | Fresno, Calif. |
| Jerome Randle, CAL | G | Sr. | Chicago, Ill. |
| Michael Roll, UCLA | G | Sr. | Aliso Viejo, Calif. |
| Isaiah Thomas, WASH | G | So. | Tacoma, Wash. |
| Klay Thompson, WSU | G | So. | Ladera Ranch, Calif. |
| Derrick Williams, ARIZ | F | Fr. | La Mirada, Calif. |
Second Team
| Name | Pos. | Year | Hometown |
| Jamal Boykin, CAL | F | Sr. | Los Angeles, Calif |
| Jeremy Green, STAN | G | So. | Austin, Texas |
| Calvin Haynes, OSU | G | Jr. | Reseda, Calif. |
| Theo Robertson, CAL | F | Sr. | Pittsburg, Calif. |
| Nikola Vecevic, USC | F | So. | Bar, Montenegro |
Honorable Mention (receiving at least three votes): DeAngelo Casto (WSU, So., F), Derek Glasser (ASU, Sr., G), Dwight Lewis (USC, Sr., G), Roeland Schaftenaar (OSU, Sr., F/C), Seth Tarver (OSU, Sr., G/F).
Pac-10 All-Freshmen Team
| Name | Pos. | Ht. | Hometown |
| Tyler Honeycutt, UCLA | F | 6-9 | Los Angeles, Calif |
| Trent Lockett, ASU | G | 6-4 | Minnetonka, Minn. |
| Reggie Moore, WSU | G | 6-2 | Seattle, Wash. |
| Reeves Nelson, UCLA | F | 6-8 | Modesto, Calif. |
| Derrick Williams, ARIZ | F | 6-8 | La Mirada, Calif. |
Honorable Mention (receiving at least three votes): E.J. Singler (ORE, G/F).
Pac-10 All-Defensive Team Chihuahua, Mexico Chatsworth, Calif.
Name
Pos.
Year
Hometown
DeAngelo Cato, WSU
F
So.
Spokane, Wash.
Jorge Gutierrez, CAL
G
So.
Justin Holiday, WASH
G
Jr.
Venoy Overton, WASH
G
Jr.
Seattle, Wash.
Seth Tarver, OSU
G/F
Sr.
Portland, Ore.
Honorable Mention (receiving at least three votes): Eric Boateng (ASU, Sr., C), Patrick Christopher (CAL, Sr., G), Marcus Johnson (USC, Sr., F), Nikola Vucevic (USC, So., F).
143 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
9 Guards on the first team
May have helped Klay. He didn’t have to be one of the 2 best shooting guards in the league.
by BigWood on Mar 8, 2010 11:53 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Him being on the first team ahead of Jeremy Green is a travesty
And you could make a darn good case for both Robertson and Boykin, too.
I just was always under the impression that these teams were selected on conference performance. There is just no possible way a guy who had the second-highest shot percentage and use percentage over conference play but posted the 51st offensive rating and 32nd effective field goal percentage should even be sniffing the all-conference team.
I thought Green was the only one who definitely should have been ahead of Klay
I also wonder if some voters mistakenly looked at the year-long stats…
by johnnycougar on Mar 8, 2010 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
I wonder if it's significant that it's the coaches who vote on this
They all know how much they have to game plan for Klay, whereas Green is only the 2nd option on his team. Klay always drew the best defender too, so maybe it’s about more than stats here. That’s about all I can think of in the way of justification.
by johnnycougar on Mar 8, 2010 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
I would agree with that
But if that’s the case, how is Fields not the POY? Every team devotes almost all of its resources to stopping him, and he still had arguably the best year.
That is also true
And why I picked Fields. Maybe because the bigs in this league (esp. Fields and Pondexter) had relatively weak opposition? My best guess is that it’s because Randle was the best player on the best team. Unfortunately.
I'm perfectly OK with the choice of Randle
You can make a great case for all three guys, and I don’t think anyone is bulletproof.
I know I'm a UW homer ...
… but I’m surprised that the issue of QPon being the first Pac 10 player ever to win POW honors five times has not come up in your debate. Four guys have won the award four times and each has been POY. How is it QPon can dominate the regular season to the point where he wins the award a record number of times and then, somehow, doesn’t make the cut when the big award is handed out? The mere fact that he won it five times speaks to his consistency. His stats are right there. His impact on a winning team (21 wins) is undeniable.
Its really an indefensible selection in my estimation.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
That's a very good point
My only question is: who votes on the POW? Is it still just the coaches?
If so, the only rational explanation must be the feeling of consistency with Randle (not sure I’d agree with that anyways) or maybe the coaches feel that the POY should be the best player on the best team (which historically isn’t always true either). HMMMM.
POW is a fun award
But it has no merit in my opinion when evaluating a whole season. It’s often given to a player whose TEAM had the best week, and the Pac-10 often makes mistakes on who wins it. It’s an award based on a one or two game sample size, which provides fluky results.
You can make many valid arguments as to why QPon was the best player in the conference (by the way I’d rate them 1. Fields 2. Pondexter 3. Randle), but POW isn’t one that flies in my book.
I feel like POW holds less water this year then in others
Just my opinion, but with the lack of depth and stars, there was really no standouts in the conference overall. Think of how many guys could’ve won it on any given week last year then compare it to this year.
None of this is saying Pondexter wasn’t worthy, but POW isn’t the stat to point to in an argument for him. His ORtg, on the other hand, was out of control good.
that's nice revisionism (is that a word?)...
… but the weekly honors and the annual honors utilize the exact same subjective criteria as far as anyone can tell. To not apply that already debatable criteria uniformly is a shame.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Ok, fine
His first POW came against Wright State, Belmont, and PSU all at home
The second came against: Northridge (home) and a loss against TTU (away) in a close game.
The third came against: Cal and Stanford at home
The fourth came against: Arizona and ASU at home
The fifth came against: OSU and Oregon away.
In all those, there was only 1 loss, so the argument that POW goes to the best player on the best team on a given week holds water.
I think calling the choice of Randle "indefensible" is a bit of hyperbole
Again, I can see very good arguments for all three. But when a guy isn’t even taking the highest percentage of shots on his own team … well, your argument starts to leak a little leak a little bit at that point.
He was very efficient
He was 3rd in the nation in the 24%<x<28% of possessions category. But, again, he only used 1/4 of him teams possession. Fields, on the other hand, was 21st in the nation for those using more than 28% (He used 33%).
chucking up shots is your criteria?
I didn’t know ball-hogging was a good thing. I thought efficiency was more important. If you want to use stats, you will find that QPon compares same or favorably to Randle on many of the key ones including ORtg, % Shots, eFG%, TS%, TO Rate, and even Stl % (which is surprising given their positions). You could say that the Reb% stats that Quincy have wash with Randle’s Assist stats, but that would be incorrect as Randle was average as a playmaker while Quincy was a multi-faceted rebounder and shot blocker.
Anyway, on the subjective front, you could make the whole “best player on the best team” argument. But that hasn’t been the case in recent awards. I’m not even sure Jerome is the best player on a team with Christopher and Robertson. The 5-time POW situation is record setting and speaks to the consistency of Q’s impact on his team’s games.
So, yes, indefensible. I don’t see any hard fact or subjective argument that calls for Randle to be chosen ahead of Pondexter. If you have other facts at your disposal, please do share.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Ball hogging isn't a bad thing
When your ORtg is 125 and your team’s offense isn’t good overall. I heard plenty of Huskies lament this past season that Pondexter wasn’t assertive enough in the offense, so it’s not like I’m making this up out of thin air.
I’m not trying to minimize his case — he had a fantastic year and was as deserving of the award as anyone else. All I was really trying to get at was why someone might not have voted Pondexter POY, since it really was splitting hairs.
Plus, coaches tend to vote the best player on the best team, unless there’s a player who transcends his team to insane levels (hello, James Harden!).
So, just to play devil's advocate
Remember, this is just splitting hairs for argument’s sake.
First of all, Randle is integral to his team’s offense in a way that Pondexter simply is not. Randle plays almost the entire game with the ball in his hands. He’s responsible for initiating the offense, and also creating his own shot. The first isn’t true of Pondexter, and the second isn’t always true. There is something to be said for that as being “more important” to your team.
One of the stats you cited was that they have similar shot percentages. This is true. However, Randle has a much higher possession percentage, which is more important in signifying a player’s role within the offense. Randle contributed more than just points — many of Cal’s possessions ended with him making an assist, resulting in the second-highest assist rate in the conference.
And I think that possession stat is important – he was the trigger guy for the No. 4 offense in the country, and far and away the best offense in the league. Cal won it’s conference championship on the back of its offense, and Randle was integral to that.
One other note, Randle played 91.3 percent of Cal’s minutes, compared to Quincy’s 83.4. I understand that’s not Pondexter’s fault and is a product of the system, but it is a difference. Would Pondexter have been as effective playing 37 minutes a night instead of 33? I think it’s a legitimate question.
We’re as in to stats as anyone, but we’ll also be the first to admit that not everything can be quantified. And if we’re willing to admit that, how much more willing are the coaches?
One more thing
Ok - this is fun.
1. not sure how you can make the argument that Randle is much more important to his team’s offense when Cal has Christopher, Boykins and Robertson. Just because he hogs the ball more doesn’t mean that his contributions would not be replaced.
2. Possession % – your say “much higher” which is not correct. The difference was a few percentage points and Pondexter was still to 10 despite playing fewer minutes and playing in a SF position in an offense that runs fewer half court sets than most teams
3. Randle as a trigger guy was also among the worst in terms of TO %. Compare that to any other PG in the conference and you see Randle was not effective as a playmaker.
Your whole argument rests on Possession and Pct of minute stats which are hardly all that differentiated and do not collectively overshadow all of the other categories that Quincy has advantages in. It also fails to consider the liability that Randle was in terms of TO which compare unfavorably to most PGs in the conference.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
I think you should let this go
I also think Pondexter should have won, but Fields and Randle both have legit claims as well. It’s not the most egregious thing in the world.
Possession is an individual stat
It’s calculated as a percentage of when he’s on the floor. So when you factor in the fact that he was on the floor more, it’s actually a pretty significant difference.
I think your characterization of him as a ball hog is incorrect. That’s his role within the offense. He’s the guy who makes it go. There are other guys in the conference I would characterize as ball hogs, one of which plays for Washington. I don’t think that’s true of Randle.
And about that TO percentage … there are only three guys in the conference who are primarily point guards who played comparable minutes who were better. He was better than Reggie Moore, Venoy Overton, Abdul Gaddy, and Jared Cunningham. No, it wasn’t great, but it wasn’t horrific, either.
Wow, Those 1st and 2nd teams
really show the complete lack of big men in this conference.
No joke.
First team (which is two teams no matter how the Pac 10 tries to spin it) has 8 perimeter players and only one true “big”. I agree with Nuss, er, Jeff Nusser (still wierd), that DeAngelo deserved to be on that 2nd team. But its not like we’ve had worse snubs before, right?
Oh, wait.
Remember, we voted with position in mind.
Finding quality bigs in this conference is like finding Waldo in a forest made out of candy canes.
I feel like I could be a Pac-10 Coach
I believe I got the entire Freshman Team right and only missed Tarver on all-D (oops, only the player of the year). I think I put Capers on instead because I couldn’t think of who else to put on and I figured I might as well be a homer. I can’t believe it was Tarver instead of … well, I guess that explains it. Casto did well but as a Coug even I can admit he racked up some of his good numbers by coming over weakside to block and leaving his man open for a few putbacks. I did vote for Holiday as DPOY though.
Not a huge fan of Sendek for COY. ASU had a lot of upperclassmen playing in their 3rd or 4th year in Sendek’s system, and in a down year in the conference (mainly because of youth by other teams) ASU had a lot of advantages.
By the way, you missed Nic Wise on the 1st team.
I voted for Sendek.
Who else would you vote for? For me, the only coach that’s really up for consideration is Monty down at Cal. However, he had a roster of senior studs (unlike the role-players ASU returned) and much higher expectations. Remember, not only was Cal the preseason pick for League champs, but were also a top 15 (maybe higher?) team nationally. Cal only lived up to one of those two labels.
On the other hand, everyone who had ASU pegged for 2nd after the loss of two bonafide NBA players, including a top 5 pick in Harden, raise your hands.
…
…
You in the back, quit lying. Anyway, between those two, I think the stronger case lies with Sendek. Who else would be a viable candidate? Romar, Kent, Obama-bro, Bone, and Howland all had what could be characterized as “disappointing-at-best” years. The other coaches, at best, maintained status quo.
I voted for Monty, still
ASU did have Glasser, Abbott, Boeteng, etc. They had quite a bit of upperclassmen in a down year. I wouldn’t have had them at second, but I would’ve had them in the top 4 based on their experience which is key in that system. Thinking more about it, I probably should’ve gone Sendek, but you can make a case for Monty.
Cal lost Kampf (Big loss, in my opinon) and didn’t have Robertson or Gutierrez for a good chunk of the year. His team had high expectations and he actually lived up to them.
I picked Montgomery
For many of the same reasons Grippi outlined this morning. But I can’t quibble with Sendek. Both were superb this year.
Remember, Montgomery had to battle through injury problems on his roster, as well as getting a team that probably never was as good as that preseason ranking to live up to expectations. I think sometimes it’s just as much of an accomplishment to get much out of a team that much is expected out of as it is to coach up a group that not much is expected out of.
I picked Johnny Dawkins
on the grounds that getting 13 wins out of a roster which literally, at some points in the season, had four recruited scholarship players on it is a &%*#ing miracle. No team in the league had more negative juju to cope with (and it’s not like they were tipped as favorites to begin with).
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."
That's the power of Landry Fields
I still voted Sendek — ASU bounced back well from the loss of James Harden
I feel like I could make a case for Kevin O'Neill
If his team didn’t hit the skids at the end of the season. Major adversity, some of the best defense in the nation, and did I mention major adversity?
Aaaaand Landry Fields gets robbed for POY
Of course.
Don’t be so hard on Klay, Nuss. A lot of dinosaurs out there love their PPG. Just like a bad call in our favor, I’ll take it.
I agree with the selection of Randle.
Using they eyeball test he was the best player in the conference.
Klay Thompson is my man crush
by crimson and gray on Mar 8, 2010 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
I was confused
And didn’t realize the other Nikola was having such a good year. Our Nikola is better
Their Nikola had an awesome year
He was the 2010 version of Aron Baynes. Check out their seasons side by side. A little less offense, but every bit the defensive beast.
I'm impressed
It didn’t hit me to look into him until after I saw the awards. He had a really really good year
He totally flew under the radar screen
I voted him First Team All-Conference in the blog poll. Granted, I did have to pick a center for that team, but he won that competition going away.
He could be scary good for the next two years.
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."
I left him off my ballot
Because I completely forgot about him and I’m kicking myself for it. Under the radar was right. If he adds more bulk, which I bet he will, it’s gonna be scary.
True
Although Alex Stepheson also ranking second-best in the league makes me wonder whether the numbers are a bit skewed by USC’s guards just never rebounding the ball at all.
Bet you can’t name the third-best rebounder (by combined offensive and defensive rebound percentage) in the Pac-10 without looking it up!
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."
Third best?
Hmmm … percentages are always tricky because it could be someone who doesn’t play many minutes. Could be Pondexter, given his high OR% …
Nope
Pondexter is actually like 12th or something. He had a very low DR% (admittedly, his teammates probably got a lot of those).
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."
I think it's a tricky question
First, I bet it’s no one we’d initially think of.
Second, it almost has to be a Cal guy for Paul to immediately (I presume) know it.
I’m going for Bak Bak! (or however you spell it). Maybe Zhang.
I'm only looking at the leaderboards (min 40 minutes played)
It’s Omondi Amoke.
You can pick your jaws up off the floor now.
As usual for this thread, I’m not sure whether this says more about Amoke’s fiberglass-vacuum skills (which are admittedly quite impressive) or the complete and utter lack of bigs in this conference.
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."
Er, that would be 40% of minutes
Not 40 minutes total for the season…
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."
Defensively, it's harder as a whole
You don’t have a man to specifically seal off. Then again, you can also be a floater. Still, he put up a combined number above 36% and that is impressive.
Beast is an understatement.
Like I explained to my girlfriend, he’s 5 inches shorter than Baynes and 25 lbs heavier.
By the way, what does this say about the strength of the Pac-10 this year?
09-10: Klay Thompson, Michael Roll, Ty Abbott and Derrick Williams all make top 10.
07-08: Derrick Low, Russell Westbrook, Jeff Pendergraph, Taj Gibson, and Chase Budinger all did not make the top 10. Four of those guys are currently in the NBA, and we all know D-Low was way better than any of those guys are right now. (BTW, Williams is good, but I still think a Frosh has to be outstanding to be on the 1st team).
Jordan Hill, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, and Robin Lopez all failed to even make the 3rd team in 07-08. These are also NBA guys.
Geez.
Williams WAS outstanding
By any tempo-neutral metric. I won’t give away my first-team ballot yet, but …
Looking at statsheet
Okay, he was better than Vucevic (but not by much) and you could make a case that Boykin deserved it more. Williams wasn’t like Harden or Love or a few others of the past few years, but he was certainly good. I’d stop a little short of “outstanding” but I see your point. He’s better than I initially thought.
And if Kevin Love and Westbrook among other handn't left for the NBA
None of these guys in the First team would be listed.
You could say that about most conferences
I think arguments like that are a little silly, because the whole point is that they are one and done players from the moment they arrive.
Slightly unfair comparison
That year’s Pac-10 was probably the most NBA-talent-dense major conference in recent memory.
I have to admit, though, I only see 3 or 4 guys in the current league who look like potential future first-rounders (Williams, Vucevic, Honeycutt— others?).
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."
Klay could end up there
Gaddy certainly could. Dwight Lewis maybe. Isaiah Thomas could if Isiah Thomas is running a franchise in two years.
But your point is well taken. Nobody looks surefire at this point.
It's so freaking hard to be a first-rounder as a shooting guard though
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."
I suppose it's a little unfair
But it does echo what people have been saying about the Pac-10 this year. It’s obviously not fair to expect us to have such a high number of NBA players every year, but the overall difference is still a little staggering.
I thought so too
That said, I could only see Randle and Fields as other potential 1st rounders. Well, Williams could be too since NBA teams always love to draft “potential.”
Damn hard to be successful at that size
Nate can get away with it because he’s explosive and can play above the rim. Unless you’ve got some springs, being that little makes it tough at the next level.
The other problem Randle has going for him
Is that he’s only an average finisher around the basket, something that will be that much tougher at the next level.
Williams isn't really a "potential" type of player right now
He’s way too short for the kind of game he has right now (basically a power forward’s game). He won’t be NBA material until he develops a jumpshot.
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."
Not at nbadraft.net, he isn't
Maybe there’s a difference of opinion. He doesn’t really seem like a 1st rounder to me— no offense.
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."
He was earlier in the year
And still, 34th is right there.
Not sure what more you’d want from a 3 after the lottery. Can shoot the 3, defend, score midrange, rebound and play with his back to the basket.
There's no real reason to believe that he can make NBA 3-pointers
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."
There's no real reason to believe he can't either.
He’s shooting .375 for the year, so right now it’s a positive in his game.
3 shooting is something that a lot of NBA players struggle with initially anyway, and later improve on. In terms of thing you can easily improve, 3 point shooting is near the top of the list if you’ve got any sort of touch on your shot, which Pondexter does.
Srsly?
He’s shot 43 of them all season. Unless his shot selection skills are beyond horrible, almost all of those will have been open shots.
For his career he’s 52 for 157, which is to say, he makes one in three while taking fewer than two per game, at the collegiate level. That’s plenty of reason to believe that he can’t make NBA 3-pointers.
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."
Agreed
I think you’re stretching it a little, Cass. You asked for a reason to think he wouldn’t be an NBA first round pick. That’s a pretty enormous question mark with regards to the NBA game. Small forwards have to be able to stretch a defense.
But like I said
Even if he can’t do it initially, he shoots a good ball so he can develop that. A lot of players struggle with the 3 early in their career. Kevin Durant was a sub 30% shooter as a rookie.
Certainly, it's not impossible
But if a guy hasn’t developed it after four years, scouts and GMs will question whether it’s going to happen. Not saying it’s fair or 100 percent bulletproof, but it’s the sort of thing that affects draft position.
Yeah
I feel like he does enough other things well enough to get a pretty good look though. And he’s not a character concern, for what that’s worth.
I think that will be worth a lot to someone
Also, the work ethic he displayed in improving himself over the last four years will sell someone on the fact that he hasn’t yet reached his potential. I think when it’s all said and done, he’s comfortably in the 20-30 range. As they say, it only takes one team.
It's one of those things
If you’ve got John Wall’s talent but are a HUUUUUGE character concern like he is, then it gets overlooked. If you’re a fringe first rounder like Pondexter, it becomes important.
If you asked me when he was a freshman, I would've laughed at his chances
He proved me wrong. He went from what seemed like a cocky freshman (floating a one and done idea) to a mature senior leader that can flat play. I hope someone in the first round picks him up for that guaranteed contract. I’m pretty sure whomever takes him will be happy with what they get.
Kevin Durant also shot 203 3s in one collegiate season
and made 82 of them (over 40%). He shot more 3s in one year than Pondexter did in four.
What a preposterous comparison. Maybe some NBA team will decide that they can teach him to shoot 3s, but if they do, it’s going to be on the basis of private workouts and not on the basis of what he’s shown so far in college games.
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."
it is?
… because those numbers are not much different than B-Roy .. and he is a 2. Scottie Pippen never even shot a 3pt until his senior year at Central Arkansas. It is not uncommon at all for athletic players to develop an effective “defense stretching” 3 point shot in the NBA, especially if their other skills justify them having a roster spot.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Sigh.
We’re not saying he won’t or can’t. This isn’t some kind of personal attack. What we’re trying to think like an NBA GM and analyze why he might not be a first-round pick. And if I’m an NBA GM, I’m not sure I want to spend my mid-first round pick on a guy who is 6-6 and hasn’t developed a consistent outside shot in four years.
He might make them all look silly someday. But the draft is all about managing risk vs. upside, and if a GM feels he’s basically reached his offensive ceiling unless he develops an outside shot, that’s not a lot of upside for the risk.
As someone who worked for a credible NBA Draft Website for awhile..
Quincy Pondexter carries a couple skills that most players at his position do not.
1.) Ability to play in the paint. This is immensely important for NBA teams, especially ones running a higher tempo. Quincy is very good at rebounding for his size, and scoring within 17 feet, and he has NBA post moves. These skills are what separates him from the pure shooters that anyone can draft.
In order to go in the first round with Quincy’s size you need to offer something unique. Whether it’s your speed, shooting, rebounding, defense, Quincy’s ability to have a very solid mid-range game, above average athleticism, and ability to play in the post should all help him be a pick in the late teens to the mid 20’s.
Good stuff
Thanks. Like I said above, it only takes one team (Nate Robinson and Knicks comes to mind). And if one team envisions him as a perfect fit for their system with his skillset, he’ll have no problem going in the first round. Like you, I think he’ll be in the first round when it’s all said and done.
Why can't you have just 5 guys on the 1st team
and do it by position and have a 2nd and 3rd team with guys by position. Is someone’s feelings going to be hurt?
Honestly, the results just go to show you how bad a coaching performance occurred this year. You have a 1st team all Pac, a 1st team all defense, and a first team all freshman and yet finish dead last. Just for reference I believe Oregon had 0 players on the 1st-3rd, defense and freshman teams, OSU had 2 and Stanford had 2.
Maybe we will figure out how to run an effective offense next year, just like we did under Wulff!
And of those other teams you listed
How many had a new coach and were trying to overhaul the system their program runs?
Additionally
UW had 1 on the all-pac ten teams and two on the defensive team. USC had one on the second team and the most improved. ASU, who finished second, had one all-freshman and one first teamer.
How you make a connection between post-season awards and coaching is beyond me.
And your pt is what? That with less talented players, Kent, Obama's in law, and
JD should be winning coach of the year honors? Obviously, post-season awards reflect talent on one’s team. If you disagree, go back to the Coug football season the past 2 years.
It’s one thing to overhaul the system without the talent, it is a completely another to overhaul a system with talent. That’s my pt. The fact some like SC were successful with less talent is a good prop to the coach. Bone failed. I am not asking for him to be fired. I believe he is a solid coach, but he has flopped this year, and I don’t think he would disagree with such an assessment.
by ptowncoug3012 on Mar 8, 2010 7:08 PM PST up reply actions
No, they don't reflect on the team in basketball
You’re shooting at nothing by saying because Klay was on one team, Dee was on the defensive team, and Moore was a good freshman that we should be in the upper echelon. We finished the season crappy, it happens. This team hit a wall and died at the end. It happens, but don’t sit there and say everything that happens is Bone’s fault directly.
He's also ignoring the fact that Klay DID NOT have an all-Pac-10 season
Really, the only guy who was deserving of all-Pac-10 honors was Casto (probably second team).
By the way, if we go off your criteria, we should have been in the tournament last year because we had an all-Pac-10 first teamer (Rochestie) and two guys on the all-freshman team (Thompson and Casto). Right?
I would call last yr successful. Wouldn't you? So now we are bashing
a NIT bound team who was making a strong push for the NCAAs. I am sorry, but c’mon man. That is a piss poor comparison. What else you got? I didn’t vote on the awards, but obviously voters recognized we had 3 really talented guys on our team.
My pt is that Bone didn’t accomplish what he should have accomplished this yr with this kind of talent. I believe there is a COugfan exclusive where Bone recognizes this! He should have been around 5th or 6th place.
Again, I am not calling for his head because he failed, but really guys, we finished 10th in this league. Think about it. 10th with that talent! 10th!! 10th!!
by ptowncoug3012 on Mar 9, 2010 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
So, you're telling me a team that made a strong push to the NCAA's
That then lost it’s main scorers shouldn’t have had a pretty significant drop off?
You’re screaming 10th! 10th! 10th! Without acknowledging that with two more wins (or one more, damnit Littlewood), we’d be in 5th place in the league. As far as the talent, Klay probably wasn’t first team. Remember how much trouble you all had finding another guard on the freshman team? Yeah, Moore is talented, but this years class is nothing compared to years past.
What I am saying is pointing at post-season awards and saying we should’ve finished in X spot is flawed.
We also finished 10th
With the most wins of any 10th place team in the history of the conference, and were two games out of 5th — one game out if you consider that the first Oregon game should have been a win.
And I’d argue that this team has less talent than last year’s squad, if you want to go there. Maybe not less potential, but less talent right now.
So the fact that we finished a couple games out of 5th, is deemed
a success. My pt was that Bone should have finished 5th or 6th place with this team in this conference. So yes, I am reviewing his performance and deeming it a failure.
Oregon, OSU, and Stanford are not good, yet we had issues with all of them.
I guess why the defense. Bone acknowledges this team is much better than how they finished. I guess I am agreeing with him and you are disagreeing with him. He agrees that his team should have performed better than they did. I agree. Neither Bone nor I are saying this was a NCAA or even a NIT team, but they should have performed better than they did with the talent on the roster.
by ptowncoug3012 on Mar 9, 2010 1:01 PM PST up reply actions
Nobody said success
You began by saying that we have all this talent and therefor Bone sucks as a coach because we’re last.
What I said was that you’re looking at it all wrong. The team had a few games that could’ve gone either way and we’d be looking at the season a different way if they were in the win column (which is probably how Bone sees it). The team has potential, but I wouldn’t say that have the talent at the moment and placing all the blame on the coach is ridiculous. Judging him after one year with a young team, all while trying to install a new system just isn’t fair.
Finally, Stanford and OSU are actually decent teams. Any team with Green and Fields is going to be in games. OSU clicked late and started going on a run, they started slow and finished strong.
Have you read what I've written over the last two weeks?
Yeah, I too thought this team should have been better. I don’t think this was a lose 9 of 11 type of team. However, I think the whole “this conference” thing is a bit of a canard at this point. Yeah, it didn’t have the same top end talent. But it also didn’t have the same bottom end talent it usually does, either. The reason why so few games separated so few teams is because they were just that tightly bunched.
If the refs get the call right against Oregon and we figure out a way to hang on against Stanford down there, this team is in 5th place. I just think labeling it “failure” is a little too black and white for my tastes.
And if we get a rebound against OSU
We’re knocking on the 4th place door.
And you’re right about the conference. There’s usually a whipping boy or two and there really wasn’t this year. There was no winless OSU team or 2 win Oregon team. Top to bottom, the conference was all pretty close to each other and anyone really could beat anyone.
Are there complete voting results for Player of the Year?
I had a little Klay-vs.-Pondexter bet going with a buddy of mine. I made it after the San Diego game…
Klay's stats
are deserving. This forum was way too hard on the guy this year IMO. 16 ppg 5 reb. 2 ass. 1 stl 1 block per game is good conference data- especially for a sophomore. The kid led the Cougs in points 20 games and rebounds in 7- and when you consider the team PPG his % of scoring is darn good. Most likely the 2nd best performance ever for WSU for a 2nd year kid. Puidokas led the Pac 8 in points and boards as a soph- I would have to rank that higher. The whole ‘NBA expectation’ (created by press not Klay BTW) and that aspect sort of tainted expectations I felt- when if you track a freshman to soph season growth chart, he truly improved a good bit. If that trend continues he will be an all time PAC 10er. As his D improves and his teammates do too- let’s face it, the help on offense was minimal- he will fce the double less and with an open floor the sky is the limit.
I think stepping back and realizing that viewing him as some sort of savior wasn’t all that reasonable and looking at the solid season he had- w/ little to no help in the paint beyond DeAngelo- you can safely assume the Cougs would be far far worse if Klay hadn’t performed as well as he did. PAC 10 team knew who they had to double and despite that constant double he still scored well. Congrats to Klay- I am surprised at the heat he gets for playing so well for the Crimson and Gray.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
You think its bad here?
Try the Cougfan boards.
by J.J. FeKl on Mar 8, 2010 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I know and I agree the hate is bad over there
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Mar 8, 2010 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
totally agree
Good kid and great player. Though our fans have lost sight of that, the coaches of the Pac 10 obviously didn’t. I’m guessing that the guys baggin’ on him would be pretty unhappy if he transferred. He is the best we have and he got the other team’s best defender every game. He will go down as one of the all time Coug greats and I hope the doubters remember that when he matures and reaches his potential. For a school that has historically not produced a ton of winners, Coug fans set the bar unreasonably high for our athletes. It’s unfortunate when we start ripping on our own. Most years we would be griping that one of our “star” players was disrespected because he was left off the team.
I would have him second team All-Pac-10, if we're putting ten in the first team
Which I think he deserves. Remember, though, that these awards are supposed to be based on performance during the conference season. Klay did most of his damage prior to Pac-10 play, and has really struggled in the second half of the conference slate.
Having said that, Klay still does a lot of the little things well. Moving without the ball, rebounding, defense, and of course just raw scoring. The problem is he doesn’t score the amount of points he should based on the number of shots he takes.
I think one of the reasons he got so many votes from coaches
was that they built much of their defensive game plan around him, regardless of how he’d shot the last game. When you’re focusing on him with your best defenders, sending double at him constantly… even when he struggles, you KNOW he’s a player.
I think I put him on my second team. I can’t remember, though.
Why does one have to be labeled a "doubter" to say that he didn't deserve an award?
I think he’s going to be great. I think he’ll be a legit POY candidate next year. To say that he wasn’t one of the 10 best players in the conference this year doesn’t minimize his growth.
Did you guys even read the post? This wasn’t a rip on him — it was a rip on the coaches.
I respect your opinion
But your argument just kind of runs in circles and doesn’t address the real issue.
We’re not saying he didn’t have a good season. Overall, he did. He also improved a ton, even as he struggled to score. All of that is great. But that’s not the assumed criteria for a team like this. His play in Pac-10 games was not good, and by that I mean it was not efficient, which is what actually helps your team win. You undermine your argument by referring only to “per game” stats to support your conclusion. That is simply not a good way to evaluate a player.
All of the things you said don’t even begin to convince me he was one of the 10 best players in the conference this year.
assumed criteria? who's would that be?
That strikes me as a bit of a my way or the highway tactic. I understand there are many metrics in play that can prove and disprove whether or not a guy played well; and I respect their use and your knowledge of them. But to just disallow a guy’s conference stat line because it belies your argument is not reasonable. He isn’t Tyrone Porter- a guy who single handedly beat several teams this year- but is no where to be found on any of these Conference best lists. Or Dragovich, who was the same- lit up a few teams- but was not considered a game in and game out threat. Why? Overall game- rebounds, steals, FT %- the other ways that the player can beat you. The only stat that went down significantly in conference play was Klay’s PPG, he remained around the same efficiency in the other aspects of the game statistically…IMO that PPG drop is directly attributable to his lower % from three land. The problem w/ the metric is it doesn’t take into account supporting cast- when Capers, Casto, Thames , Watson, Abe, Hartung et al. are out there- who do you want to take the jump shot? Maybe Moore if he is out there? Nik is a set shot guy so must be wide open. So the D adjusts- they leave men open to double the shooter. If the open man is a brick- do you hit him? That stuff matters, and in game prep it comes into play. There was a reason Bone kept hammering Klay to keep shooting- it was because he was the best option, even in the hideous drought wherein he languished. The conference coaches knew this too. Thus the votes.
The fact is that the coaches vote this award. That matters, because they know what and whom to prep for when they face a particular team. I do not profess to know their criteria. I remain steadfast in my belief that the myopia w/ regard to Klay has blinded Coug fans to the limited offensive skills of those around him and to the obvious need to get the lone jump shooter on the floor the ball more frequently. In reality, the 1st team is 10 guys- which makes the 2nd team a sort of default 3rd team all conference set. Basically, it boils down to whether or not Klay is one of the 10 best players in the conference. I think he was. His stats don’t disprove that. Here is a quote from Jake Curtis the Examiner.com Stanford guy:
“Stanford’s Jeremy Green was named to the Pac-10’s five-player second team, which, in essence, is more like a third team since 10 players are named to the first team. It would be more of an honor to be named all-conference if only five players were on the first team. Fields no doubt would have been on a five-player all-conference team as well, probably with Randle, Washington’s Quincy Pondexter, Washington State’s Klay Thompson and Arizona’s Derrick Williams.”
Many of my Pac 10 watching friends who aren’t Cougs share this belief that Klay is worthy of this award as well. I just think it is hard sometimes to get outside of the Crimson and Gray disappointment and see his play in an objective light.
However I would like to point out that I don’t believe in the least that your opinion diminishes your Coug fandom as someone suggested. I greatly enjoy this site and the ability to discuss Cougs w/o that absurd deterioration into personal slights that is so common elsewhere on the web in sport chatter. Go Cougs
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Mar 9, 2010 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Good points, all
I guess it comes down to definition: Is it the 10 best players, or the players who had the 10 best conference seasons? I worked under the assumption that it was supposed to be the first.
It’s reasonable to assume at this point that the coaches took the first tack, hence voting for Klay. And if someone asked me to create a list of the 10 best Pac-10 players in terms of ability, Klay would unquestionably be on that list. You could also maybe say the same thing about Nic Wise.
But is Michael Roll – also on the first team – one of the 10 best players in the conference? No way, but you could make a decent argument he had one of the 10 best seasons.
See the problem here?
Isn't it possible to love Klay and what he'll be as a Cougar. . .
. . . and objectively disagree with his selection? Oh, yeah, that’s what Nuss did.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
