IowaBear said:

---

Only on a Baylor board would we have a large contingent of the fan base claiming the Bears are peaking because they beat a 16 loss KSU team.

---

That's not exactly what everyone is saying. What people including me are saying is that the Houston loss and K State win ( and now a close Tech game) are proof enough for me and most fans to know we are peaking. We never claimed that our peak was Mount Everest. But where we are now, even in the losses, certainly beats the molehill we were on 3 weeks ago.

We're 4-6 in our last 10. We're definitely playing better. But a peak has to include wins against someone with a pulse. If this is Baylor peaking that furthers how mediocre this season has been expectations considered

bear2be2 said:

---

Hotsauce said:

---

Team looks much better than it did 3 weeks ago, that's for sure. Don't know if that's peaking or not.

VJ and Omier are gonna be problems for any first round opponent. Unfortunately, I think we may have played our way into the 9 seed which means we're stuck playing a 1 if we advance.

---

Agreed. I think we're peaking. Our ceiling is just a second-round tournament exit.

If we win a tournament game, I'll be happy. But that's only due to the steady lowering of expectations throughout this season.

---

I agree. Our peak is the final 32.

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Only on a Baylor board would we have a large contingent of the fan base claiming the Bears are peaking because they beat a 16 loss KSU team.

---

That's not exactly what everyone is saying. What people including me are saying is that the Houston loss and K State win ( and now a close Tech game) are proof enough for me and most fans to know we are peaking. We never claimed that our peak was Mount Everest. But where we are now, even in the losses, certainly beats the molehill we were on 3 weeks ago.

---

Our last five games we've looked like a team that belongs in the tournament. That's an improvement over what we've looked like for much of this season. We've beaten a bad team comfortably, beaten two mediocre teams away from home -- one of those in blowout fashion -- and played two excellent teams tough. For what we're capable of doing, this team is playing well right now.

Hopefully we can win our first-round matchup. Our "run" would likely end there, but anything after that would be gravy for this bunch anyway.

IowaBear said:

---

We're 4-6 in our last 10. We're definitely playing better. But a peak has to include wins against someone with a pulse. If this is Baylor peaking that furthers how mediocre this season has been expectations considered

---

I agree regarding expectations and the fact they are lowered. But we probably have slightly different definitions of the word. I do not think peaking must necessarily mean huge wins. I'm just speaking of peaking as having played better the last 3 games than we played all year.

bear2be2 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Only on a Baylor board would we have a large contingent of the fan base claiming the Bears are peaking because they beat a 16 loss KSU team.

---

That's not exactly what everyone is saying. What people including me are saying is that the Houston loss and K State win ( and now a close Tech game) are proof enough for me and most fans to know we are peaking. We never claimed that our peak was Mount Everest. But where we are now, even in the losses, certainly beats the molehill we were on 3 weeks ago.

---

Our last five games we've looked like a team that belongs in the tournament. That's an improvement over what we've looked like for much of this season. We've beaten a bad team comfortably, beaten two mediocre teams away from home -- one of those in blowout fashion -- and played two excellent teams tough. For what we're capable of doing, this team is playing well right now.

Hopefully we can win our first-round matchup. Our "run" would likely end there, but anything after that would be gravy for this bunch anyway.

---

Oh I don't disagree in that sense. I think you have valid points along with op in a sense that playing better against the better teams we're playing. Early on this year we got absolutely cooked against any good team we played. That hadn't been the case in the Tech or Houston games. Both of which Bu looked like they belonged.

If either of Love or Roach had panned out the upside would be so much higher. That's the calculation Drew was making and unfortunately we completely whiffed.

Quinton said:

---

If either of Love or Roach had panned out the upside would be so much higher. That's the calculation Drew was making and unfortunately we completely whiffed.

---

Celestine's inability to be the marksman he was billed as has hurt us as well.

I actually think he's made progress over the course of the season as a defender and rebounder, which has been important given our lack of frontcourt depth. But we really needed him to be a more consistent 3-point threat than he's been because he brings very little else offensively.

Since the start of conference play, Celestine has only hit 27 of 80 3-point attempts (33.8 percent). That's not nearly good enough for a guy whose primary job is to extend/loosen up the defense.

I agree but he is what he is. Decent bench player with D1 experience that is being asked to do too much and doesn't have it. I thought he's been a little better on D and rebounding lately but still has no motor.

I agree his shooting would be more valuable if he was consistently 40% instead of 60% 1 game and then 20% the next 2.

Quinton said:

---

I agree but he is what he is. Decent bench player with D1 experience that is being asked to do too much and doesn't have it. I thought he's been a little better on D and rebounding lately but still has no motor.

I agree his shooting would be more valuable if he was consistently 40% instead of 60% 1 game and then 20% the next 2.

---

I don't think asking him to hit open 3s is asking too much. That's the one skill he showed at Cal and was the primary reason he was recruited to Baylor.

He's actually done a pretty good job with the things I think are unfair to ask of him -- like playing interior defense and rebounding. It's the things that should a be a gimme for him that he's struggled with. That's what has made him so frustrating.

I thought he was shooting 37% from 3 but I could be wrong. If they expected low 40s than yeah that's a significant drop off. I think the inconsistency from game to game has hurt.

Quinton said:

---

I thought he was shooting 37% from 3 but I could be wrong. If they expected low 40s than yeah that's a significant drop off. I think the inconsistency from game to game has hurt.

---

He's shooting 35.5 percent on the year. But that number is below 34 percent since the start of Big 12 play.

He's essentially a 6-7 Brady Heslip, from a profile perspective. If you're going to be a liability in most other areas, you have to be an elite shooter. Anything less than 40 percent from 3 and you're likely a net-negative player.

And Celestine is capable of producing at that level. He did in two of his three seasons at Cal, including 44 percent on a similar number of attempts last season.

34% in league play is bad, didn't realize it was that low.

A lot of the shots I've seen him miss were well covered. I'm wondering if the spacing was better at Cal and that allowed him better looks there. I'm not familiar with 2023-4 Cal so just conjecture.

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

A lot of the shots I've seen him miss were well covered. I'm wondering if the spacing was better at Cal and that allowed him better looks there. I'm not familiar with 2023-4 Cal so just conjecture.

---

He's missed some tough ones, but he's missed a lot of open looks, too. Shots that guys like Heslip or Lace Dunn don't miss.

bear2be2 said:

---

Guitarbiscuit said:

---

A lot of the shots I've seen him miss were well covered. I'm wondering if the spacing was better at Cal and that allowed him better looks there. I'm not familiar with 2023-4 Cal so just conjecture.

---

He's missed some tough ones, but he's missed a lot of open looks, too. Shots that guys like Heslip or Lace Dunn don't miss.

---

I'll agree there. He's not been automatic on wide open shots either..

Quinton said:

---

If either of Love or Roach had panned out the upside would be so much higher. That's the calculation Drew was making and unfortunately we completely whiffed.

---

I'm going to lean towards the concussion had more impact on Roach than expected. How that version if roach was a 2x captain at Duke is befuddling. He's had flashes of brilliance lately

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

If either of Love or Roach had panned out the upside would be so much higher. That's the calculation Drew was making and unfortunately we completely whiffed.

---

Celestine's inability to be the marksman he was billed as has hurt us as well.

I actually think he's made progress over the course of the season as a defender and rebounder, which has been important given our lack of frontcourt depth. But we really needed him to be a more consistent 3-point threat than he's been because he brings very little else offensively.

Since the start of conference play, Celestine has only hit 27 of 80 3-point attempts (33.8 percent). That's not nearly good enough for a guy whose primary job is to extend/loosen up the defense.

---

Crazy we haven't had someone of Heslip caliber in well decades now

Fre3dombear said:

---

Quinton said:

---

If either of Love or Roach had panned out the upside would be so much higher. That's the calculation Drew was making and unfortunately we completely whiffed.

---

I'm going to lean towards the concussion had more impact on Roach than expected. How that version if roach was a 2x captain at Duke is befuddling. He's had flashes of brilliance lately

---

His ball handling has been even more suspect as well. It's rare that he doesn't have a dribble hiccup when he gains possession.