The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - 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: Stanford 72 U SC 65 (/thread-15333.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: WBB: U SC at Stanford 1:00pm - pefloresjr - 12-31-2017

Is this watchable or streamable?

Cheers,
Pete F.

Re: WBB: U SC at Stanford 1:00pm - TheFarm07 - 12-31-2017

(12-31-2017, 03:36 PM)pefloresjr link Wrote:Is this watchable or streamable?

Cheers,
Pete F.

It's on the Pac-12 network, nearly all conference games are on this channel

Re: WBB: U SC at Stanford 1:00pm - TheFarm07 - 12-31-2017

We win 72-65 after nearly letting US.C back in the game at the end. We couldn't close them out as we had 18 turnovers including a couple at the end.

But it was McPhee who came up big with 21 points, with several critical baskets to expand the lead once US.C had narrowed the gap.

With turnovers, I don't know what the issue is that we can't improve. A few of those turnovers were passes that I thought was ill-advised, like when we just came up with a loose ball on the opposing side of the court and Kaylee threw it right to a US.C defender covering McPhee. I knew she was thinking of an outlet pass for the easy layup because that was the only defender between McPhee and the basket, but still it would have been better to get it to Sniezek who was right next to her and see if we can set up a play, because the pass was easily picked off.

Otherwise, Kiana seemed to come out of the gates hot but didn't see much play in the second half.

Maybe it's because McPhee's back and they are seldom on the court together or maybe because she's still nursing an injury, but DiJonai's production has been way down lately.

Alanna had a typical stat line, 13 points and 6 rebounds on decent, but not great 4/9 shooting, but also 6 turnovers. If we are going to step up a notch, it would be great if she can be more efficient and more of a threat offensively. Except for that one great game against Ohio State in Vegas, Alanna hasn't made the step up we had hoped.

Fingall had limited opportunities to score, but was efficient when she did.

A great 2-0 start to conference play was what we needed, especially against two tough L.A. schools. We'll have a trip to the Arizona schools, we should beat Arizona, but ASU will be a tough test even with the graduation losses they had.

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - TheFarm07 - 12-31-2017

On another note, it was great to hear the crowd get into it, from what I heard on tv. The refs gave them a lot to yell about as McPhee was pushed around and fouled without anything called against US.C.

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - JJJ - 12-31-2017

Yes, McPhee was getting mugged on most of her shot attempts.

Totally unrelated but was that Fingall who jumped to dislodge the ball that was wedged between the rim and the backboard? I thought that was cool.  8)

I hope we can address the turnover problems. Good record to start conference play!

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - TheFarm07 - 12-31-2017

On another note, the Ducks' Sabrina Ionescu just in her second season set a NCAA record with her eighth career triple-double. Oregon is going to be tough to handle, because not only do they have Ionescu, but they have Hebard, who is so efficient inside, Bando a 3-point threat, Cazorla and their own int'l freshman recruit in Sabally.

But UW even without Plum and Osahor, gave them all they can handle and scored 83 points against them

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - TheFarm07 - 12-31-2017

(12-31-2017, 07:59 AM)81alum link Wrote:Preliminary:

SC outplayed us in the first quarter, but we gradually figured out how to defend them and edged them each of the next three quarters for a too-close-for-comfort win.  McPhee was outstanding in so many different ways today, not only with 21 points but with 8 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2 blocks.  And after Sadie Edwards repeatedly torched us in the early going, it was McPhee who was assigned to guard her and keep her under control.  She would have scored more except--despite being tripped, shoved to the ground, bumped on every shot, and hacked, the refs never called an and-one for her--a particularly egregious job of officiating that had the crowd booing lustily.

I just took a second look at the box score. McPhee had 0 FT attempts in the game, which is just insane, considering the type of hits she was shouldering.

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - 81alum - 12-31-2017

Write up is done.

Yes, McPhee getting 0 free throws goes down as one of the bigger injustices I have seen.  And Missy was not even the one responsible.

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - CompSci87 - 12-31-2017

The game was strangely officiated for sure. A ton of non-calls, then every once in a while something would randomly be called. Block/charge calls almost always went USC's way. At one point there was a tech on USC (on Trakh, I assume, but I missed who it was on), and after that it seemed like the refs called everything USC's way for a while to make up for it. Surely this reflects my bias, but even allowing for that -- ugh.

With seeming prescience, by the way, a lot of the questions for Tempie at the pregame chalk talk were about refs and how the team deals with how a particular ref group is calling the game.

In the end, our team did great to work with the way the refs were calling things, for the most part, and pulled out a solid win. That's what counts.


Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - chimera - 12-31-2017

Not as good an effort as against UCLA and really dumb, no other word for it, turnovers still a big problem, but avoided a letdown and got the job done.  There are some things I don't understand about the offense, one of which is what is the point of getting the ball to our bogs 10 feet from the basket so much?  Kaylee is just not great at scoring from that range and Alanna gets mobbed, which is why she had so many turnovers or part of the reason.  We need to establish better inside position and get the ball to the bigs quicker when they do that.  We are making life difficult for Alanna, who often ends up trying to beat a double or taking a tough shot farther out than is optimal.  I just don't think we are giving our bigs the best chance to succeed right now.  The offense is better aside from the turnovers but still seems to me to be far from where it needs to be and not sure it can get there this season.  I think the Marta/Kiana combo is a pretty good one with two capable ball handlers and a good shooter in Williams.  Wilson did well in her more limited minutes too.  I honestly do not know what the best line-up is.  It is great to play so many, I like that.  I do kinda feel it is still a bit too much of a hodge podge of line-ups though.  I don't want the rotation shorter.  Tough conundrum.  Right now it seems like Romano and Jerome are odd players out.  They had more minutes earlier in the season.  We haven't gotten Carrington untracked since coming back from her injury.  If we could ever get all the pieces or even 3/4 of them all going at once, that would be something.

I'm not a fan of USC.  I thought their players played hard and all that but they were very whiney, and Simon more than deserved her technical.  She was making faces and jawing at the refs all game.  Just did not like the vibe of their team.  I feel the same about their women's volleyball team too.  Maybe something in the water down there...

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - 81alum - 12-31-2017

Washington hung 83 points on Oregon and lost.  Their sophomore guard Amber Melgoza, who I don't recall seeing play before, scored 31.  On Oregon's side, Ionescu set the NCAA record for triple-doubles with 24 points, 14 rebounds, and 10 assists.  Without too much extra effort she could have had a quadruple-double since she had 7 turnovers!

Across the bay, UCLA bounced back from our defeat and trounced C al 82-46.  Our win looks pretty good just now.  SC hung with C al, losing there 76-64. 



Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - 81alum - 12-31-2017

(12-31-2017, 06:04 PM)chimera link Wrote:There are some things I don't understand about the offense, one of which is what is the point of getting the ball to our bogs 10 feet from the basket so much?  Kaylee is just not great at scoring from that range and Alanna gets mobbed, which is why she had so many turnovers or part of the reason.  We need to establish better inside position and get the ball to the bigs quicker when they do that.  We are making life difficult for Alanna, who often ends up trying to beat a double or taking a tough shot farther out than is optimal.  I just don't think we are giving our bigs the best chance to succeed right now. 
From what I have read about the Princeton, what you are seeing is the essence of the Princeton.  The post comes out from the block to the elbow to pull defenders away from the basket and make room for back door cuts.  The post is the only member of the team who is not flying all over the place, but she is cycling back and forth from the block to the elbow, and from one elbow to the other.

That is exactly what happened when Smith came out to the elbow, received the ball, and passed to Sniezek for a back door cut.

Unfortunately, the really excellent Jamie Angeli instructional videos are not all available on Youtube and I can't find the the one that explains the post entry.  But you can get an idea of why the post comes out to the elbow from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXpPo6kX-vw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXdd-onSxY

It also may explain why Tara told the bigs to practice shooting over the summer and why Fingall is doing so much better.  Bigs must be able to make that shot from the elbow.  Dodson, most probably, doesn't have that shot yet?  Just a guess.  They do go down to the post too--but they don't hang out there regularly because that just clogs the space needed for the motion.

Thus the Princeton offense is a 4-out 1-in offense, except that one of the 4 is always running "in" and through the defense as the rotations progress.  In contrast, nearly all other offenses like the triangle are 3-out 2-in, with the 5 player at the low block and the 4 at the opposite elbow.  Thus, in the Princeton, one of your "bigs" has to be a good enough three point shooter to be one of the four players 4 stationed on the outside arc, and then has to be agile enough to run through traffic regularly, while the other big player who plays "in" just moves between the low block and the elbow.

So what does this do to the "bigs"? 

The 5 must be able to shoot from the elbow, must be able to put it on the floor and go "up the rail" to the basket, and must be an especially good passer to other players running the baseline for a back door cut.

The 4 must be able to run through the defense like a guard.  One hope is that while the motion causes the defense to switch defenders repeatedly rather than trying to keep up with the offensive players, that the 4 will wind up being guarded by a short guard and can turn and make a jumpshot if the path to the basket is not clear.

I think you can see why this is a long-term conversion.  Kaylee can only play the 5, and we have seen no evidence at all that she can regularly make 10 foot jumpers.  She is not going to be effective in the Princeton unless she can make short jumpshots or take it to the rim off a dribble.  Nadia seems well suited to the 5--she can make those jumpers and she is a good passer.  Dodson is probably still developing both those skills.  Smith is well suited to the four. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - crackpot - 12-31-2017

(12-31-2017, 06:04 PM)chimera link Wrote:I'm not a fan of U$C.  I thought their players played hard and all that but they were very whiney, and Simon more than deserved her technical.  She was making faces and jawing at the refs all game.  Just did not like the vibe of their team.  I feel the same about their women's volleyball team too.  Maybe something in the water down there...

True story - worst water I've ever had in my lifetime was a few blocks from $C (nearly 40 years ago and I still can't get over just how awful it was when I was trying to douse the heat of a Belizean tamale, then faced with would I rather die, or drink this water (yet it might kill me)).. Anyway...worst attitude I've seen in a long time, esp. Simon. Coming out for introductions, she looked like she'd rather be any place else in the world. And the looks she gave to the refs, yowza.

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - 2006alum - 01-03-2018

Interesting article with some good quotes about the team.

(ps - am I the only one who's happy the board's old skin is back? I found the new software much harder to read and follow, and found this one to be great as is. Maybe I'm alone here?)

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - CTcard - 01-03-2018

(01-03-2018, 09:42 AM)2006alum link Wrote:(ps - am I the only one who's happy the board's old skin is back? I found the new software much harder to read and follow, and found this one to be great as is. Maybe I'm alone here?)

I like it back, but I am old and I fear change.

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - BobK - 01-03-2018

I'm with CT Card  LOL :P

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - BostonCard - 01-03-2018

The interface here is simpler and more user friendly, even allowing for the fact that I am used to this interface.  Also, there seemed to be a lot of wasted space in the new board.  The added features (embedded tweets and videos, WYSIWYG editing) were nice, but sometimes less is more, and the simplicity of this board has a lot going for it, and is probably worth the loss of features.

That being said, if the other board made life easier for the administrator, then I'm all for it.  I can get used to a new UI.  But if making changes to the board had to be done manually and the back-end software wasn't working for her, then she should go to something that does.

BC

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 U SC 65 - Phogge - 01-03-2018

I love change. Cavity irons, Callaway soft, my new 56 degree.