The CardBoard
wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread (/thread-10772.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - TheFarm07 - 11-24-2015

(11-24-2015, 08:18 AM)chimera link Wrote:I agree that early losses can be a heat learning tool but this one was just such a stinker, and at home yet.  If this were a road loss, it would be bad, at home it is horrifically bad.  Just cannot defend home court like that, no matter the reasons.  I was optimistic about the season after the GW game, now, I just don't know what to think.  Wasn't just the loss, it was how bad it was from so many players.  We should do better against zones than chuck up threes and hope for the best or try to drive or pass into traffic.  Everything was a beat late.  When we did get their zone out of shape we did not pass it quickly enough to take advantage.  With the blue uniforms it felt like the twilight zone.  Who stole our team?  I don't get why we struggle with zones almost every year.  This loss is a stinker that will be a weight on the team all year as far as RPI and all that.  And if I have to sit there and watch us do similar stuff against the zones that will surely come our way after teams see this, I don't know that I can take it.

Agreed on this point as well.  No matter how you cut it, this is a very embarrassing loss and a major setback to progress this season.  It's early and Santa Clara might become a nice surprise, but judging from their earlier lopsided losses to US.C and UW, then our caliber of play was seriously lacking.  It's one thing to lose to a Top-25 team, but Santa Clara will probably end up a below .500 team, just like Arizona was last year.

Even the top teams, like UConn lose unexpectedly at times, but I think you would have to go back years, to find them losing to a team that finished well below .500.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - oldalum - 11-24-2015

Well after reading all this, I'm surprised no one has really taken this loss to its natural conclusion: at this point we should just abolish the women's basketball program altogether. The coaches didn't prepare the team to play against a zone, the players didn't play with fire and determination, and if we can't beat a terrible team like Santa Clara, why play at all? Reminds me of all the hyperbolic comments after football's loss to Northwestern this year, and how has that turned out? Get a grip folks! And stop drinking the UConn Kool-Aid. You think Auriemma has been happy with his team's effort and performances in all those 40-point wins? They bring it every minute of every game? They don't know when they're up 40 points on teams they should be beating by 60? Reminds me of the folk belief about the Beatles never playing a wrong note in concert. 

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - chimera - 11-24-2015

This was not Northwestern level, this was much worse.  Worst home loss in a decade or more????  I've been to 99% of home games in that time and maybe I am just blocking out bad games, but I cannot recall a loss at home this bad.  The key is home loss.  Ugly road games happen (and ugly home games too) but this was super craptastic in all respects and will be a blight on the record all year. 

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - oldalum - 11-24-2015

no question it's a bad bad loss, I just don't like the extrapolating from it. It's early, the coaches are learning through games what each player does well and doesn't, what systems work and don't, and they'll get better. Just like Lili said, learn and move on. I suspect the coaches are pretty good judges of effort and anyone who doesn't give 100% is not going to be playing.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - KenCard - 11-24-2015

I actually thought we missed Kailee quite a bit yesterday.  She's got height and is a good defensive player.  We needed interior help defense against Santa Clara, for example.  She can play the high post.  That's another way to work against a zone -- feed the high post then let that person shoot or feed the low post.  Tara would like to have a 10-deep rotation.  We really only had eight against Santa Clara.  I'd like to see Kailee start at the four.

Although I really like McPhee's game now, she will improve immensely when her outside shot begins to fall.  I remember Brook Smith's field goal percentage improved a lot one year.  Her Mom attributed it to the coaches being very positive with her.  For that reason (confidence), I'm happy to see McPhee shoot open threes.  I'd also like to see Sniezek shoot some in order to keep defenses honest.

Finally, I thought our effort was pretty good.  I was paying particular attention to it at the beginning of the game, because of the opportunity for being too confident.  There might have been a slight letdown, but I didn't see it as a major factor.  A confluence of rebounding, shooting, turnovers and Kailee's absence, yes.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - M T - 11-24-2015

I don't know what Jskass saw, but I was sitting behind Stanford's 2nd half offensive end .  Each player was active.  No one was just occupying space.  As best I could tell, they seemed to be executing as coached.  No one was dropping their shoulders and jogging down the court (she's now graduated).  In transition, everyone hustled.  On offense, the three point shooters were moving around trying to get enough room for a pass to come in.  The guards were moving the ball around, but rarely able to get the ball to anyone in a position to score.  The guards occasionally would try to drive to the basket, often resulting in their getting stripped of the ball.  The interior players were working to get position, but the passing lanes were closed.  On defense, our guards were definitely harassing the ball handler.

A couple of differences I believe exist between Karlie and her sister Bonnie.  Bonnie had more range on her shot.  She'd hit from 8 or 10 feet out from the 3pt line.  Karlie's got a good 3pt shot, but she seems to not shoot from so far back.  She was often on the baseline, but the defense would be out on her so she couldn't get enough separation for a shot.  I think Bonnie could get a shot off a bit quicker, but that could be an incorrect impression.

On offense, we worked the ball around with a minimal amount of dribbling.  But we rarely got a good shot off.  Instead, when the clock got low, we took a choice of a questionable pass in, a hazardous drive, a dangerous skip pass, or a challenged 3 point shot.

I stand with my judgement that the coaches had not properly prepared the team well against a zone defense.  We have noted for a couple of years about the tendency of Stanford to pass the ball around the perimeter when the defense is in a zone, and struggling to find an opening.  The ball moved more quickly, but there was still the problem of getting the ball in.

Jskass, you may want to reread 81alum's post, or go listen to the audio yourself.  I think you are taking Tara's statement out of context. She was talking about what she told the players BEFORE the game. In response to a question, she hummed and hawed and finally said "Coming in, we really talked about it, you can't just show up. You gotta be really aggressive."  She certainly did not directly indicate any player or the entire team did not show up.  She did say a number of things about their play, specifically about rebounding and turnovers.    If you have some particular players that you think were flat, or particular sequences that were flat, point them out to us (or at least me as I don't recall them).    (I'll note that Tara brought Bri & Lili to the press conference, and also responded to a question about McCall that she played with heart.  I presume this means she valued their effort in the game.)

Regarding the O-boards, I'll note that McCall played all of the third quarter when SCU out-rebounded us 6 to 5 under our defensive boards and 5 to 3 under their defensive boards.  Erika got no rebounds that quarter.  Overall the rebounding numbers weren't as bad as I expected based on Tara's comments:  We got 29/52 (55.8%) under our defensive boards while SCU got 20/36 (55.6%).  Both of those numbers are lower than a typical game, but they're approximately equal. (Note: The SCU box score has an error in totals for the 2nd & 3rd quarters.  These 3rd quarter numbers are based on the sum of the numbers for each player.)

I haven't/can't analyze it, but it seemed the majority of our turnovers were in the half court game, not during transition.  I don't think we can blame them on a move to a faster game.

Eventually, foul troubles hurt us, specifically on Bri and Karlie.  The press was effective in getting turnovers, but it couldn't be utilized effectively late.


Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - fullmetal - 11-24-2015

Well, as with the football team's game vs. Northwestern, we'll get to see how the coaches right the ship.  I believe in Tara, and I believe in the Stanford women.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - 81alum - 11-24-2015

Here are all of our home losses over the last few years, for comparison.

14-15  ASU 57-60; C.al 53-63; Texas 84-87
13-14 No home losses
12-13 UConn 35-61; C.al 55-67
11-12 No home losses
10-11 No home losses
09-10 No home losses
08-09 No home losses
07-08 UConn 54-66
06-07 BYU 52-55; 57-72 C.al

I guess the worst losses before last night was that horrible 61-35 thrashing at the hands of UConn, or perhaps the loss at home last year to ASU.  I don't remember the BYU loss--perhaps that was a very bad home loss too if BYU was as unheralded as Santa Clara.

But it does seem as if this was the worst home loss in 10 years.  On the other hand, we probably have the least experienced team we have had for 10 years.  No starting seniors, and the juniors are not that experienced either.



Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - TheFarm07 - 11-24-2015

(11-24-2015, 09:37 PM)81alum link Wrote:Here are all of our home losses over the last few years, for comparison.

14-15  ASU 57-60; C.al 53-63; Texas 84-87
13-14 No home losses
12-13 UConn 35-61; C.al 55-67
11-12 No home losses
10-11 No home losses
09-10 No home losses
08-09 No home losses
07-08 UConn 54-66
06-07 BYU 52-55; 57-72 C.al

I guess the worst losses before last night was that horrible 61-35 thrashing at the hands of UConn, or perhaps the loss at home last year to ASU.  I don't remember the BYU loss--perhaps that was a very bad home loss too if BYU was as unheralded as Santa Clara.

But it does seem as if this was the worst home loss in 10 years.  On the other hand, we probably have the least experienced team we have had for 10 years.  No starting seniors, and the juniors are not that experienced either.

I am thinking the worst loss in terms of quality of opponent.  UConn thrashes top 5 opponents on a regular basis, so there is no major loss of prestige there even with a 25-pt loss.

Ending Records of the teams cited above and NCAA tourney result for those years:

2014-15: ASU (29-6; Sweet 16), C.al (25-10; Second Round), Texas (24-11; Sweet 16)
2012-13: C.al (32-4; Final 4), UConn (35-4; National Champs)
2007-08: UConn (36-2; Final 4)
2006-07: BYU (23-10; First Round), C.al (23-9; First Round)

We'll re-check at the end of this season, but I bet Santa Clara will struggle to reach .500 this year, which would make this by far the worst loss compared to the 8 listed above.  I am not sure all of the records under Tara's guidance, so I can't say if this is one of the most notable setbacks during her tenure, but at least over the last decade, nothing really compares.