sluggo said:

---

I hav read many times that Cal has to hire Pasternack. Mostly it is because he will bring in donors, he is a good recruiter, and he "knows" Cal and it is his dream to coach at Cal. And that he has a good record, although he is coaching against very low level competition and has no NCAA tournament success. I want someone who is good at the basketball aspect of coaching because those skills will be needed to translate to a higher level. Is he good?

Another site says: "Slow pace, doesn't take many 3s, good on the glass on both ends, allows teams to take a ton of 3s." That does not sound great. I notice his team is 329th nationally with 5.5 threes made per game. In KenPom his team is listed as 85th at adjusted offensive efficiency and 156th at adjusted defensive efficiency. I care a lot more about offense, and that is mediocre. It looks like his past teams were slightly better offensively.

So what is the basketball argument for him? Do his teams look good to the eye? Is he a great developer of talent? Do his teams set screens away from the ball? Do they move without the ball? Is the other site correct about slow pace? Is he modern in terms of the 3 point shot?

---

socaltownie said:

---

sluggo said:

---

I hav read many times that Cal has to hire Pasternack. Mostly it is because he will bring in donors, he is a good recruiter, and he "knows" Cal and it is his dream to coach at Cal. And that he has a good record, although he is coaching against very low level competition and has no NCAA tournament success. I want someone who is good at the basketball aspect of coaching because those skills will be needed to translate to a higher level. Is he good?

Another site says: "Slow pace, doesn't take many 3s, good on the glass on both ends, allows teams to take a ton of 3s." That does not sound great. I notice his team is 329th nationally with 5.5 threes made per game. In KenPom his team is listed as 85th at adjusted offensive efficiency and 156th at adjusted defensive efficiency. I care a lot more about offense, and that is mediocre. It looks like his past teams were slightly better offensively.

So what is the basketball argument for him? Do his teams look good to the eye? Is he a great developer of talent? Do his teams set screens away from the ball? Do they move without the ball? Is the other site correct about slow pace? Is he modern in terms of the 3 point shot?

---

They play fundamentally sound basektball. It is very difficult to actually answer your last paragraph because of the quality of play/players in the Big West.

He made the tournament 2 of the past 3 years (we will see this year) in a one team conference. His team lost by a point to creighton as a #12 playing them at an unfavorable pod (Indy).

The second paragraph (not sure which site) reminds me of Zona under Miller. They never really were a 3 point but played fundamentally good basketball and usually played "in to out".

---

TilWeWobble said:

---

I read what Sluggo read and it caused me the same concerns he raised: "slow pace" offense? We've had enough of slowing the pace to compensate for inferior talent. Reducing the number of possessions is not only ineffective it is boring. If this truly is Pasternak's preferred style, and I don't know whether it is, that's not the direction I would go. Anyone seen enough of his teams' play to have an

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

We have been playing boring basketball forever. Is there not anyone that plays an up tempo game that recruits would have fun playing in?

Let's face it - this program needs excitement. Its going to be a long road to mediocrity and I am tired of watching good defense that leads to zero offense.

---

Winning will breed excitement. I don't care how it's achieved.

---

BeachedBear said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

It's a good question and I would love for someone with more technical expertise with bball to do a film review and report--

I will say I asked a similar question many months ago about our slow pace, and was informed that slow pace doesn't have to be a barometer of poor coaching. For example, #1 in kenpom is Houston, who plays at a bottom 20 pace in the country. In fact, if you look at the top 20, there are many programs in the 300s for tempo.

I would like to know if his pacing is a function of the talent he works with in the Big West, or just a feature of his scheme, or something else.

---

The ability for a coach/team to dictate pace is the most important thing (vs the pace itself). After that, a coaches may scheme to dictate pace - but also the competition and their ability to change tempo has an impact. A coach can scheme due to his talent or his desires or combination.

Fox seemed to decide that a VERY slow pace was what he desired regardless of the players. That was bad. The talent on this team should probably have been scoring in the 60s and 70s more than they did. If you're going to play in the 50s, you need a dominant post player and some good shooters to make it count at the end of the shot clock - Fox had none of that. Fox's teams best attribute was probably defense and grit (not that they were good defensively, just their best attribute). They should have used that to force tempo and turnovers and get more layups and open shots early in the shot clock. But that didn't ever happen. So Fox was actually lessening our chances by sticking to his guns on pace. Furthermore, our team couldn't dictate pace - so when we did score 70, the other team scored 90.

The whole idea to keep the score low to give us a chance at the end is a total farce.

Most high major teams have a talent level that can adjust their pace. Many mid-majors (like UCSB and Pasternack can do so as well, but probably not as impactfully and rely more on their talent level to dictate pace. Once in a while you'll see a mid-major that is an outlier and playing to an extreme - usually with some sort of gimmick. It can work (see LMU) - but not as often as one would hope.

I too, would like some film review. Maybe I should have watched from Gaucho games after I turned off the Cal broadcast in disgust the last few seasons.

---

Pittstop said:

---

Wasn't Boeheim's zone boring for 47 years? And HE never had problems recruiting, or winning NCAA Tournament games.

---

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Wasn't Boeheim's zone boring for 47 years? And HE never had problems recruiting, or winning NCAA Tournament games.

---

Other than blocks and steals, I am rarely entertained by defense, but I find zones really interesting, mostly because so few teams use them, but those that do are usually successful with them.

Boeheim's ability to recruit NYC made the difference. And it is slow, boring offenses that turn off top recruits.

Mark Few plays at a fast tempo, his players are looking for good shots (especially open threes) throughout the shot clock. He also doesn't try to deny any shot and run out the shot clock, he tries to deny high percentage shots and sucker opponents into taking low percentage shots.

---

4thGenCal said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

sluggo said:

---

I hav read many times that Cal has to hire Pasternack. Mostly it is because he will bring in donors, he is a good recruiter, and he "knows" Cal and it is his dream to coach at Cal. And that he has a good record, although he is coaching against very low level competition and has no NCAA tournament success. I want someone who is good at the basketball aspect of coaching because those skills will be needed to translate to a higher level. Is he good?

Another site says: "Slow pace, doesn't take many 3s, good on the glass on both ends, allows teams to take a ton of 3s." That does not sound great. I notice his team is 329th nationally with 5.5 threes made per game. In KenPom his team is listed as 85th at adjusted offensive efficiency and 156th at adjusted defensive efficiency. I care a lot more about offense, and that is mediocre. It looks like his past teams were slightly better offensively.

So what is the basketball argument for him? Do his teams look good to the eye? Is he a great developer of talent? Do his teams set screens away from the ball? Do they move without the ball? Is the other site correct about slow pace? Is he modern in terms of the 3 point shot?

---

That 85 rank in adjusted offensive efficiency is the best ranking in the conference by 51 places, and the overall ranking is in part a function of playing in a league where you won't get much strength of schedule help. The questions I'd have are does he prefer the slower paced game or is it a function of the players he's been able to land. He's been there long enough that you'd think it was the former, which I wouldn't love. Can he recruit to Cal with that system even assuming the availability of NIL money?

Give me Pasternak over Miles any day though.

---

If JP get's the job and there will be attempts to land "big names'/national names - Joe will recruit extremely well. JP has earned and developed outstanding trusted relationships with Oakland Soldiers/PP programs along with key African country programs. Locally Bill Duffy/Calvin Andrews will support JP as well. JP has a very strong/effective network locally which is very important for Cal. Shore up the Bay Area/Sacramento as hoping for National coverage is hard to sustain without a proven tradition of winning. Pasternack will be able to recruit even better with a Power 5 team attraction to play for. He wins and former players respect him _ Leon Powe, Sean Marx, Omar Wilkes, Ryan Anderson, Theo, Midgely, Ubaka, etc Also interestingly Dennis Gates will endorse JP as they have a good relationship. Gates will receive the respectful call of "are you interested in the Cal job' and He will politely decline, but if asked He would endorse JP.

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Wasn't Boeheim's zone boring for 47 years? And HE never had problems recruiting, or winning NCAA Tournament games.

---

Other than blocks and steals, I am rarely entertained by defense, but I find zones really interesting, mostly because so few teams use them, but those that do are usually successful with them.

Boeheim's ability to recruit NYC made the difference. And it is slow, boring offenses that turn off top recruits.

Mark Few plays at a fast tempo, his players are looking for good shots (especially open threes) throughout the shot clock. He also doesn't try to deny any shot and run out the shot clock, he tries to deny high percentage shots and sucker opponents into taking low percentage shots.

---

To be clear, running a slow pace should never be based on pounding the ball for 20 seconds before you start the offense, or deliberately passing up high percentage shots early in the clock. It should be about being selective on the offensive side and about denying easy shots on the defensive side. But you should always be looking to score. I look at it as the offense normally produces its most efficient shot later in the clock, but the goal should be trying to take the most efficient shot even it that comes early in the clock (unless of course you are running clock late in a game with a lead).

---

That's your theory. Coach Fox had his own theory:

+ Run 20 seconds off the clock and hopefully do not turn the ball over during that time
+ With 10 seconds left, confuse and confound the defense and the fans alike by appearing to not be aware of the clock
+ 5 seconds left and it's go-time: Whoever has the ball, look surprised and take 4-6 seconds to hoist a desperation shot

---

Fox consistently has one of the slowest tempos in the country. The idea is to reduce the number of possessions for BOTH teams. It is using the Law of Averages in reverse: The more possessions both teams have, the more likely the better team wins, so the fewer both teams have, the greater the chance the inferior teams gets lucky and pulls an upset. So the idea is to play tough defense, denying any shots as long as possible even if eventually you give up an easy one (hence the poor defensive efficiency). Then on offense burn clock until the last few seconds when your best offensive player plays hero ball. It is a short term strategy for trying to get to almost .500 and occasionally knocking off Kentucky. It can get your one featured scorer POY honors and maybe even a future in the NBA. It will not get you above .500 (without loading up on OOC patsies). You will not build in recruiting. It requires ruling with an iron fist because it is no fun for the players, except maybe the featured scorer unless he is a team oriented guy like Sueing, Bradley or Kelly who understands and wants to play basketball at a higher level. Those guys just transfer to better teams.

---

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Wasn't Boeheim's zone boring for 47 years? And HE never had problems recruiting, or winning NCAA Tournament games.

---

Other than blocks and steals, I am rarely entertained by defense, but I find zones really interesting, mostly because so few teams use them, but those that do are usually successful with them.

Boeheim's ability to recruit NYC made the difference. And it is slow, boring offenses that turn off top recruits.

Mark Few plays at a fast tempo, his players are looking for good shots (especially open threes) throughout the shot clock. He also doesn't try to deny any shot and run out the shot clock, he tries to deny high percentage shots and sucker opponents into taking low percentage shots.

---

bluesaxe said:

---

sluggo said:

---

I hav read many times that Cal has to hire Pasternack. Mostly it is because he will bring in donors, he is a good recruiter, and he "knows" Cal and it is his dream to coach at Cal. And that he has a good record, although he is coaching against very low level competition and has no NCAA tournament success. I want someone who is good at the basketball aspect of coaching because those skills will be needed to translate to a higher level. Is he good?

Another site says: "Slow pace, doesn't take many 3s, good on the glass on both ends, allows teams to take a ton of 3s." That does not sound great. I notice his team is 329th nationally with 5.5 threes made per game. In KenPom his team is listed as 85th at adjusted offensive efficiency and 156th at adjusted defensive efficiency. I care a lot more about offense, and that is mediocre. It looks like his past teams were slightly better offensively.

So what is the basketball argument for him? Do his teams look good to the eye? Is he a great developer of talent? Do his teams set screens away from the ball? Do they move without the ball? Is the other site correct about slow pace? Is he modern in terms of the 3 point shot?

---

That 85 rank in adjusted offensive efficiency is the best ranking in the conference by 51 places, and the overall ranking is in part a function of playing in a league where you won't get much strength of schedule help. The questions I'd have are does he prefer the slower paced game or is it a function of the players he's been able to land. He's been there long enough that you'd think it was the former, which I wouldn't love. Can he recruit to Cal with that system even assuming the availability of NIL money?

Give me Pasternak over Miles any day though.

---

BeachedBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

I hav read many times that Cal has to hire Pasternack. Mostly it is because he will bring in donors, he is a good recruiter, and he "knows" Cal and it is his dream to coach at Cal. And that he has a good record, although he is coaching against very low level competition and has no NCAA tournament success. I want someone who is good at the basketball aspect of coaching because those skills will be needed to translate to a higher level. Is he good?

Another site says: "Slow pace, doesn't take many 3s, good on the glass on both ends, allows teams to take a ton of 3s." That does not sound great. I notice his team is 329th nationally with 5.5 threes made per game. In KenPom his team is listed as 85th at adjusted offensive efficiency and 156th at adjusted defensive efficiency. I care a lot more about offense, and that is mediocre. It looks like his past teams were slightly better offensively.

So what is the basketball argument for him? Do his teams look good to the eye? Is he a great developer of talent? Do his teams set screens away from the ball? Do they move without the ball? Is the other site correct about slow pace? Is he modern in terms of the 3 point shot?

---

When Pasternack was on the Cal staff and I was coaching AAU and summer camps, I had the opportunity to coach with him. he knows his X's & O's. He also gets adapting his scheme to his talent and opponents. More importantly, Joe knows all of the other things that go into a D1 college program - recruiting, donor outreach, administration support, fan engagement. Even more importantly, he's a basketball junkie - he will sit and talk schemes all day long and is always learning new things and trying to learn and adapt.

A very long time ago, I got to listen to an aged Pete Newell and Bob Knight geek out on X's and O's. It put most of my STEM professors to shame in terms of Nerddom. Joe P struck me in that vein (not in the chair throwing Knight vein).

Are there better coaches out there that Cal could get? I think so - but not with Knowlton in charge. Would Joe be successful at Cal? My sense is, given a few seasons - we would be comparing him (favorably) to Braun in his third or fourth season. Which is successful IMHO. Will Joe come to Cal - I think last year was our opportunity and unless Knowlton is replaced - he will find better pastures.

I'm glad Fox is fired, but the fact it took so long leaves me with no confidence in JK. If we can hire Joe, despite JK - I would be very thrilled and consider rejoining the CalmBB donor pool. If, as some on BI suggest, better minds like Marks, Abdur Rahim, Kidd and others are part of the decision, we could even do better. However, I don't have a good feeling that JK is self aware enough to step back and let someone competent take over.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sluggo said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

sluggo said:

---

I hav read many times that Cal has to hire Pasternack. Mostly it is because he will bring in donors, he is a good recruiter, and he "knows" Cal and it is his dream to coach at Cal. And that he has a good record, although he is coaching against very low level competition and has no NCAA tournament success. I want someone who is good at the basketball aspect of coaching because those skills will be needed to translate to a higher level. Is he good?

Another site says: "Slow pace, doesn't take many 3s, good on the glass on both ends, allows teams to take a ton of 3s." That does not sound great. I notice his team is 329th nationally with 5.5 threes made per game. In KenPom his team is listed as 85th at adjusted offensive efficiency and 156th at adjusted defensive efficiency. I care a lot more about offense, and that is mediocre. It looks like his past teams were slightly better offensively.

So what is the basketball argument for him? Do his teams look good to the eye? Is he a great developer of talent? Do his teams set screens away from the ball? Do they move without the ball? Is the other site correct about slow pace? Is he modern in terms of the 3 point shot?

---

That 85 rank in adjusted offensive efficiency is the best ranking in the conference by 51 places, and the overall ranking is in part a function of playing in a league where you won't get much strength of schedule help. The questions I'd have are does he prefer the slower paced game or is it a function of the players he's been able to land. He's been there long enough that you'd think it was the former, which I wouldn't love. Can he recruit to Cal with that system even assuming the availability of NIL money?

Give me Pasternak over Miles any day though.

---

If JP get's the job and there will be attempts to land "big names'/national names - Joe will recruit extremely well. JP has earned and developed outstanding trusted relationships with Oakland Soldiers/PP programs along with key African country programs. Locally Bill Duffy/Calvin Andrews will support JP as well. JP has a very strong/effective network locally which is very important for Cal. Shore up the Bay Area/Sacramento as hoping for National coverage is hard to sustain without a proven tradition of winning. Pasternack will be able to recruit even better with a Power 5 team attraction to play for. He wins and former players respect him _ Leon Powe, Sean Marx, Omar Wilkes, Ryan Anderson, Theo, Midgely, Ubaka, etc Also interestingly Dennis Gates will endorse JP as they have a good relationship. Gates will receive the respectful call of "are you interested in the Cal job' and He will politely decline, but if asked He would endorse JP.

---

I feel like most of Cal's bad hires have been when they hire recruiters. I want a coach good at the basketball side. The only conference title of my lifetime was under Monty, the only coach who was good at the basketball stuff. I plan to watch UCSB tonight. I am curious and open minded.

---

Yeah, but the only Sweet 16's were with a recruiter and with a coach who was mediocre at the basketball stuff with a roster entirely inherited from the recruiter. The highest tourney seeds were with the recruiters. I'm not sure we can count on the conference to ever stink as bad as the year we won it.

There was no worse hire than Fox and he was most certainly not a recruiter. Wyking wasn't anything.

I don't favor either, to be clear. You do what you do however you do it.

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Wasn't Boeheim's zone boring for 47 years? And HE never had problems recruiting, or winning NCAA Tournament games.

---

Other than blocks and steals, I am rarely entertained by defense, but I find zones really interesting, mostly because so few teams use them, but those that do are usually successful with them.

Boeheim's ability to recruit NYC made the difference. And it is slow, boring offenses that turn off top recruits.

Mark Few plays at a fast tempo, his players are looking for good shots (especially open threes) throughout the shot clock. He also doesn't try to deny any shot and run out the shot clock, he tries to deny high percentage shots and sucker opponents into taking low percentage shots.

---

I love zones and think they are superior to man as it makes no sense to chase players when they are not in dangerous positions and zone takes less energy, which should allow better players to play more and to have more energy for offense. Some day teams will mostly play zone because they are superior because the universe is rational, I think. But change in sports is slow.

---