Introducing the Four Factors

Oh yeah...you're impressed, admit. Last year, I read the book "Basketball On Paper," by Dean Oliver. I was impressed with his analysis. Although his data primarily translated to the NBA game, TGM is utilizing his "four crucial aspects of the game"(A clever nickname will be unveiled soon, feel free to submit ideas) for the college game and the Gauchos.

Oliver says that teams are good if they control four aspects of the game, which he calls his "four crucial aspects." Conversely, bad teams are bad because they don't control. We're going to experiment and see how well this translates to the Gauchos.

The Four Factors are:

1. Shooting percentage from the field
2. Getting offensive rebounds
3. Committing/Forcing turnovers
4. Going to the foul line a lot and making the shots

TGM is trying to make a chart to use for each game. If I can become technologically sophisticated in the next day or so, I'll get it up for the UCI game.

I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. However, I took a look at some of the Gauchos games to see how well this works out. For example, in the Gauchos loss to CSUN they "won" two categories (FT, and Shooting %), "tied" one (Offensive rebounds) and "lost" the turnover battle.

In the matchup against LBSU, the Gauchos "won" three categories (Offensive rebounds, turnovers, and FT's), while "losing" only shooting %.

Lastly, against Eastern Washington, UCSB "won" two categories (shooting % and FT), "tied" turnovers and "lost" offensive rebounds.

As you can see, UCSB has to win at least two categories to win the game, and even then it's not guaranteed. Because I don't want to go through the entire schedule I can't confirm this, but I have a feeling that UCSB won at least two categories in each victory and probably three.

On the other hand, we might not be using this measures very long because they are pretty obvious. We'll give it a go and see what happens.

Go Gauchos!

My Old Friend Bob Williams

After watching the CSTV internet "Gamecast" of the UCSB game last night, I got to thinking about Bob Williams and the job he's doing this season, which has been excellent thus far. On one hand, I really believe the Gauchos can solidly dominate the Big West (losing one or two games only) and maybe get a vote or two in the "Others Receiving Votes (ORV)" category of the Top 25. On the other hand, I feel like I've been down this road before.



Let me offer an analogy of why I have such conflicted feelings to this season. Everyone has, at one point or another, had a friend (or girlfriend/boyfriend) who wasn't really a very good friend. At first, you two get along great and everything is going well. Then, there comes a point when you realize that your friend is really just a shithead (or other adjective) and isn't really that interested in being your friend. You cut off your relationship with them to let them know how you feel. Then, at some point in the near future, they contact you again, swear they've changed, and you let them back into your life. Everything goes well, until the point you realize that your friend isn't all that concerned about you, and just worries about himself. So, you cut them out again, and the cycle begins.

This reminds me of the time I invited an old friend to a holiday party with me. He used to drink way too much and make an ass out of himself. This time, I told him not to make a scene and watch what he drinks. Well, let's just say after I found him looking like this, our friendship ceased to exist.



Ok, now on to the more serious stuff. UCSB put on a strong performance last night, beating LBSU 79-64. What impressed me was that UCSB had 4 guys score above 13 points (Devine, Elliot, Harris and Powell). If the team can continue with that kind of distribution, it's going to be hard for our opponents to shut us down. Instead, it turns into a pick your poison type strategy and hope the guys you don't focus on, have an off-night. Also impressive was the fact that none of those 4 guys took a disparate amount of shots.

UCSB got to the foul line and went 10-11. That is the kind of performance that proves they are one of the better FT shooting teams in the country. Currently, they are 7th in the country in FT%.

Additionally, the Gauchos minimized turnovers (8) and created 22 on the other side. That is an awesome discrepancy from a defensive standpoint.

This game pushed UCSB to 12-2. While their non-conference schedule is very weak, their only two losses came to the #1 team in the country (UNC) and the #24 (AP) ranked team in the country, Stanford. If UCSB can go undefeated in Big West (not sure if it can happen) and win their BracketBuster match-up, I think the Gauchos could be looking at a solid 10-11 seed (a la Winthrop 2007).

As a result of this great performance, I'm really looking forward to the next couple games UCSB has. I want to see if this performance was a fluke or if they really are the emperors of the Big West.

Next victim: Cal State Northridge

1/03/08: LBSU at UCSB

UCSB Gauchos (11-2) v. LBSU 49ers (3-8)
January 3, 2008, 7:00 p.m. (PST)



UCSB opens up their Big West campaign for the NCAA tournament with a showdown against the Big West's NCAA representative from last year, LBSU.

LSBU is a having a down year this year. Their coach, Larry Reynolds, got fired last year after leading the team to the NCAA tournament. What intrigued TGM more than the firing was the hiring of Dan Monson (and futuristic Tyler Hansbrough), formerly of Minnesota. Monson, if you recall, was the coach of Gonzaga when they made the Elite 8 several years ago, losing to Stanford in a close one.



Personally, TGM fears the Monson because of his Gonzaga experience. He can sell that to his potential recruits. And, since he took a program to the NCAA tournament and he coached Gonzaga, TGM fears that he may be able to up the quality of recruits that the Beach typically gets. TGM emailed Ken Pomeroy months ago asking his opinion on Monson. Ken Pom told TGM not to fear the Monson. Regardless, TGM still has a little bit of fear when the name Dan Monson is brought out.

Here is the tale of the tape, as always, found on kenpom.com:
UCSB: http://www.kenpom.com/sr.php?team=UC%20Santa%20Barbara
LBSU: http://www.kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Long%20Beach%20St.

This year, UCSB is the team playing the faster pace (71.1). LBSU's defense is not very good this year. They're allowing a good amount of points and I think UCSB should be able to exploit the Beach's defensive deficiencies. Also, LBSU has been getting killed by the better opponents they faced this year (BYU, Washington and Cal). While UCSB has also been beaten by the good opponents they played (UNC and Stanford), I think UCSB has a very good shot of winning this game. LBSU just doesn't look very good and I think UCSB has the advantage in this one.

USF? Eddie Sutton? WTF?

This has absolutely nothing to do with UCSB (maybe a tiny bit), but, I'm pretty damn confused right now. This also has everything to do with UCSB (not really). How on earth has USF gone from Jessie Evans to Eddie Sutton in a couple hours? I have no idea if this is a coup or just stupidity on USF's part.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3168981



Something about this whole situation doesn't smell right. We here at The Gaucho Manifesto (read: me) want to get to the bottom of this to figure out what the hell is going on. ESPN.com is reporting (whether they're correct is another story) that Evans was given an ultimatum to resign or be fired. However, USF is saying that Evans requested the leave of absence (for the remainder of the season) on his own without any pressure from anyone.

This is still weird. Sutton was at the USF-LBSU game in Long Beach last week. He also has said that he had discussions with the USF AD a couple days ago, despite the fact that the AD said that she knew of Evans' decision this morning. I've been trying to find out if Sutton lives in the SoCal area (haven't been able to find that yet). If he doesn't, this makes the departure of Evans very suspicious.

Apparently, Sutton is not interested in taking this job on full-time, as in, coaching next season. He said that selfishly, he's trying to reach 800 wins (so people will forget about his DUI escapades while at OSU).

So, let's summarize. Sutton is using USF to get to 800 wins (he's at 798). Evans is taking a "leave of absence," but he wasn't given an ultimatum. Sutton talked to USF's AD a few days ago about the opening of the job (really, why would he lie about the conversations?). Sutton is only coaching this year. Will Evans be back next year? Who knows.



What does this have to do with UCSB? Well, this refutes the naysayers (sort of) to my suggestion that UCSB could land a "big name" coach. Before anyone jumps all over me to say that Eddie Sutton isn't a big name coach, read the rest of this.

Sutton is a big name coach who can bring instant credibility. While his image may be tarnished, I believe he's still got "it." Sutton last made it to the Final Four in 2004 with OSU. On the other hand, he's (admittedly) selfishly pursuing this position to achieve his goal of 800 wins. If he had 800 wins, would he take this job? Probably not, but that's not the point. The fact that he's taken this job, in my opinion, primarily for "selfish reasons" to get to his 800 win goal, somewhat dilutes my point, but I can make it work.

The point is that Sutton still took this job (again, in my opinion, primarily for selfish reasons). He's never been to the USF campus. They're in the middle of a 4-8 season. I'm sure Sutton will get his 800th win, but he might not get much beyond that.

If Sutton is willing to take a job at a school like USF for half a season, this is evidence supporting my point that UCSB could always land a "big fish." Sutton might not be considered a big fish in terms of coaching ability, but name alone makes him a big fish.

I've always suggested that UCSB should never accept mediocrity from it's athletic programs, especially for a school that so desperately wants to rid its party label while striving to become one of the top academic schools in the nation (it's pretty damn close to the academic goal, good luck on the partying one). If we attacked our athletic program like we attack the aforementioned "problem," we should own the Little West every year. However, the program has become an extension of its AD and administration. They've neglected to care about the program, and, in sod doing, created an environment where mediocrity is acceptable (Don't you wish you had a job like this?). So long as we make it to the Little West semis each year and don't make any negative news, who cares? We should care.

I admit, I'm becoming more of a Bob Williams' fan. He's going to have to get that NCAA Tournament berth to convert me, though. Yet, I've always felt that we need to hold his feet to the fire so that he understands we expect more of him than just a semi-final elimination every year.

The fact that USF can get Sutton (even if only for a year) convinces me that UCSB is perfectly capable of landing a "big name" coach in the event that Coach Williams can't deliver the goods. A while back (a couple of years ago), I suggested to my buddies that UCSB should go after a Bob Knight-esque coach. Someone who's taken a slight hit to their image, but who can take this program to the next level. Think about someone like Bob Huggins. I would never want Huggins (poor academic performance by his teams), but you get the idea.

All we need is one coach to convince the public that UCSB can make the tournament year after year (much like Gonzaga owns the WCC). Then, it makes it easier for the next coach to understand that he has all the resources necessary to win the Little West.

UCSB is the perfect place (except for housing prices) for a coach near the end of his coaching career or looking for somewhere with less media scrutiny. We've got a nice climate, right by the beach and a nice community, among other things.

I'm giving Coach Williams a fair shake (though he'll still get criticized when necessary) because I think he's doing a much better job than he has in the past. I'm pretty confident that his recruits are getting better and he's bringing in more talented guys than he has in the past (see: Luc Richard Mbah a Moute's brother). Although we're a bit of a paper tiger this year (so far), I think 10 wins is still pretty impressive and they're finally playing more like I feel they should.

What is the point of this long, rambling post? Everyone needs to realize that we can get someone with a bigger name to UCSB and we should if the current coaching staff doesn't meet our expectations. After all, we are a school that prides itself on being top notch in everything else; location, academics, partying (whether Chancellor Yang likes it or not) and soccer. We should demand the same for basketball (for all athletics for that matter).

Let me know what you think about this. Leave a comment (or not).

The Gaucho Manifesto #1

And, it begins with this; reason #1 why the Gauchos should never be anything less than #1 in the Big West. Reason #1 can be summed up with one word: location. Can this really be beat?



Before we move any further, let's examine the Big West conference and UCSB's fellow members. The Big West consists entirely of California schools, primarily located in the Southern California region. Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo, Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Northridge, Long Beach State, UC-Davis, UC-Irvine, UC-Riverside and Pacific (Stockton) are UCSB's conference competitors. Seriously, if your Coach Williams and you're recruiting players, how do you not get the most talented athletes in the Big West Conference? Don't believe me? Let's look at each school in depth, just to drive the point home (and because I always love to pour salt in an open wound).

Cal Poly: They are one of our closest competitors location wise. Sure, it's in a pretty location, but, is it better than UCSB? I think not.


Cal State Fullerton: First off, CSUF is in the middle of the greater LA area. Do you like smog, concrete and traffic? Didn't think so.

Cal State Northridge: See CSUF

Long Beach State: Ok, LBSU could be a close competitor. However, I've been on their campus (sort of), and it's not that nice. Long Beach is a nice area, so they can give UCSB a run for their money. In the end, though, is their campus on the beach? No. We win.

UC-Davis: Last time I checked Davis was pretty close to Sacramento. It's a college town. I like Pluto's. I dislike the smell of manure. Again, their location is nice, but the manure and non-beach location seal the deal.

UC-Irvine: Irvine might be able to give UCSB a run for their money. Unfortunately, like all of our lesser opponents, UCI also has an image problem. UCI is close to the beach, but not close enough. Being close to Newport Beach makes this a close one, eventually, though, UCSB prevails. Regardless, the other reasons of TGM will show UCSB as the clear cut favorite.

UC-Riverside: Do I really need to write anything here?

Pacific: See UC-Riverside

See? While there are some close competitors here (Cal Poly and UCI), none of our competitors have anything close to the location we have. While each area has a nice downtown, cool bars, nice city, etc..., UCSB is far superior. A beach is part of our campus. This really isn't a hard sell. Furthermore, has anyone visited Isla Vista lately. I'm sure some people don't like the idea of living around thousands of college students in 2.2 square miles, right next to the beach and campus, but those are the people who go to Pacific. Each day that you are in Santa Barbara you get to see the Pacific Ocean. You can walk five minutes to the beach. Everything you need is basically accessible by bicycle. If you can't sell the beach and location to potential recruits, don't worry, somebody else could do it for you.

Before anyone leaves me a hate comment after this post, remember, this is only about location. Sure, it's a fairly superficial analysis, but when you're looking to meet your potential girlfriend, great personalities don't count much and the looks are what matters. There are so many other reasons that UCSB is superior to their conference, that Coach Williams should have no excuse for missing the NCAA tournament.