So I watched UCSB beat UCR 92-87 last night. I think the game answered some questions about Pasternack and raised some others. I realize it was only one game, and I hope to learn more today and in the NCAA tournament if UCSB wins today.
Offense: A critique of Pasternack was that his teams played at a slow pace and did not take many 3s. In this game they did not run the ball up, but they attacked immediately. And they shot every open 3 and went 8 for 15. So neither was an issue, at least last night. They shot 57% overall. The team shared the ball and had good spacing. For those like me who like structure, they had one early action, which they did well, then it was mostly one-on-one with on ball screening and little off the ball. Which is typical, but not great. It will be interesting if they have more against better competition.
Defense: Cal constantly hiring "great" defensive coaches has made me not care so much about defense. But UCSB's defense was bad. Over helping to give up easy 3s, under helping and allowing easy shots around the basket, constant, stupid fouling to keep UCR in the game. I also did not like that they hedged and recovered on every pick-and-roll. So the offense knew exactly what they would do and could attack it. If you are bad at aggressive man-to-man, you should play something else. I understand why UCSB is lowly ranked defensively.
Players: I really liked Norris, a forward with a face up game, and Pierre-Louis, an ultra quick guard who does not shoot great. Both are seniors and could maybe come as grad transfers. The announcers could not stop talking about sophomore Ajay Mitchell. He is a good player, a left-handed combo guard who can finish with either hand. But he is not great. He is a career 30% shooter from 3 and just an okay athlete. Of course Cal would take him, and he is an upgrade over Askew, but not by as much as I would have thought.
Overall: I like UCR's coach Magpayo. Pasternack? There are reasons to hire him but they are not on the basketball side.
Offense: A critique of Pasternack was that his teams played at a slow pace and did not take many 3s. In this game they did not run the ball up, but they attacked immediately. And they shot every open 3 and went 8 for 15. So neither was an issue, at least last night. They shot 57% overall. The team shared the ball and had good spacing. For those like me who like structure, they had one early action, which they did well, then it was mostly one-on-one with on ball screening and little off the ball. Which is typical, but not great. It will be interesting if they have more against better competition.
Defense: Cal constantly hiring "great" defensive coaches has made me not care so much about defense. But UCSB's defense was bad. Over helping to give up easy 3s, under helping and allowing easy shots around the basket, constant, stupid fouling to keep UCR in the game. I also did not like that they hedged and recovered on every pick-and-roll. So the offense knew exactly what they would do and could attack it. If you are bad at aggressive man-to-man, you should play something else. I understand why UCSB is lowly ranked defensively.
Players: I really liked Norris, a forward with a face up game, and Pierre-Louis, an ultra quick guard who does not shoot great. Both are seniors and could maybe come as grad transfers. The announcers could not stop talking about sophomore Ajay Mitchell. He is a good player, a left-handed combo guard who can finish with either hand. But he is not great. He is a career 30% shooter from 3 and just an okay athlete. Of course Cal would take him, and he is an upgrade over Askew, but not by as much as I would have thought.
Overall: I like UCR's coach Magpayo. Pasternack? There are reasons to hire him but they are not on the basketball side.
. Joe wins - that is the defining bar to have - 131-52 at UCSB (4 of 5, 21+ winning seasons).and took over the program at near current Cal basketball levels. As a very well known former HC said to me this week "What matters is that his teams win. They do an excellent job of scouting to take away their opponents strengths. His teams can score, but they rely on their defense to win or put themselves in the position to win. He has a # of guys each year who can score on the block, which you need, can knock down 3's or create at the end of the shot clock . That is call efficiency. Do you want a team that looks good or passes the eye test, or wins. Pretty simple to me". And yes JP also brings other key reasons to the table that are critical to winning at Cal. Mitchell would certainly be an upgrade at pt at Cal and yes He would follow JP. 
