WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - 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: C.al 78 Stanford 66 (/thread-15612.html)
+- 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: C.al 78 Stanford 66 (/thread-15612.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - crackpot - 02-17-2018
The energy in the room reminded me of the UConn at Stanford game, 2010. This would not have happened had Stanford made a few more of those @#$@ layups Thursday night and gave ×ÉÉ and their fans no clue that they could win this thing. But they smelled upset, and from the tip, things were rockin'.
×ÉÉ gave this everything they had. Looked like they won a national championship. I'm not sure the team understood how hard ×ÉÉ was going to come at them.
And, yay, another Senior Night next weekend.
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - 81alum - 02-17-2018
The good box score is out and there are some interesting things.
McPhee played 38 minutes, and I think she was run-down by the end. She was 1/5 in the fourth quarter. Also noteworthy is that she was 1/7 from three point range. That has been her achilles heel since her freshman year--three point shooting is streaky, and on a night when her shots are not falling from beyond the arc it is ever so much easier to defend her.
But here is the whopper--she had 7 turnovers--4 in the second half. And while she often gets a fair share of rebounds, she had only 3 for the game. Turnovers, inability to hit the three, inability to rebound--I think she was just worn down by the fourth quarter, and it showed. All those are signs of fatigue--she lost her edge by constant use.
Nadia only had 5 minutes today, after being the star on Thursday. She did pick up 2 fouls in 5 minutes.
Basically, all five starters played 31 minutes or more--today's game had the least rotation of any game we have played this year. Carrington had 17, Dodson had 10, and everyone else was in the low single digits. C.al played 6-7 players and had a deeper bench today.
As for rebounding, we had 14 O-boards on 49 misses for 29% (we average 36%), and we had 18 D-boards on C.al's 40 misses for 45% (we average 70% in league play). Perhaps those stats are still corrupted--hard to imagine we were that bad. Despite that, however, C.al had only 16 second chance points and we had 12.
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - BosCard - 02-17-2018
Cal's point guard - 25 points, our point guard - 0 points. Johnson and Sniezek have had games where they've been really good offensively but then there are games like this when everyone knows they are not going to shoot the ball and the defense can play 5 on 3.Â
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - Griffins78 - 02-17-2018
So if Oregon beats UCLA then does UCLA drop to 4th seed in the Pac-12 Tournament? I can't find information on how to seed. If so, then we would be targeted to play Oregon St. and Oregon would be playing UCLA.
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - qwerty49 - 02-17-2018
At this point, Dodson is more willing to try to score than Kaylee, but the results are about the same. To say she needs to gain some touch is putting it mildly. But like Tara says, the best thing about freshman is that they become sophomores. And Dodson is a key to next season.
Meanwhile, let's just appreciate this team for the tough defense it's capable of playing, and for the fun of watching McPhee with the ball, and for the flashes of brilliance we sometimes see, albeit too infrequently, from her teammates. It's an up-and-down year, and just accept it for what it is.
(02-17-2018, 06:40 PM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=TheFarm07 link=topic=18746.msg224190#msg224190 date=1518916710]
I agree. Regardless of whether we host or not, I could see us losing in the 2nd round or if we play well, I think our ceiling is the Elite 8 if everything falls into place, but I can't see us beating us a #1 seed; our offense is too inconsistent, because I feel like a) our shooters aren't as efficient as they should be (we don't hit as many of our "easy" i.e. open, lightly defended shots as we should) and b) partly because of a, we either drive or attempt a lot of 3-pt shots and teams can game plan to clog up the lane or guard the arc. Only Kiana and Brit tries and makes a good percentage of midrange jumpers and unsurprisingly perhaps, they are our only 2 reliable scorers.
Alanna is very frustrating; she had a few layups/easy shots she should have made when the game was still in question. That's what separates her from being good to being very good. She needs to convert those shots. I'm somewhat surprised she had 20 points--she should have at least 25 points or more.
Our shooting percentage is really bad for the season--low 40s. The elite teams are in the upper 40s to the 50s with games regularly in the +50%. UConn has had a couple of insane 70% shooting percentage games--they simply do not miss when they have an open shot, which we do way too often.
Looking ahead to next season (I haven't given up on this season, but my expectations have been tempered and so I'm trying to comfort myself with hopes for the future), I really hope that Dodson works on her game over the summer. Kaylee has been getting a lot of playing time because of her defense and senior experience but I think it will be a step up offensively if/when Dodson takes over the 5 next season. We've seen flashes of her great athleticism this season, but she's still very unpolished at the net and I imagine with Tara's defense-first mindset, her minutes have been limited due to her defensive shortcomings.
With Kaylee graduated, the open spot is primed for a spot up in offensive production. Similarly, DiJonai plays a similar game to McPhee, but must work on her consistency. Sometimes, she still doesn't know when to stop and pop or maneuver around defenders if she's driving, something McPhee has largely learned. With Brit also gone to graduation, DiJonai must fill in the 3 spot.
Then Alanna...Alanna is still an enigma heading in her senior year. Capable of brilliance at times, but maddeningly inconsistent at other times. Her game should be a nightmare for opposing teams to defend, tall enough for the paint, but with enough range to shoot it from the arc, but nowhere near consistent enough on a night to night basis.
I know this thread is about today's game, but as I said, the result this afternoon only further solidifies that no matter what happens next weekend and in the conference tourney, our NCAA run will likely be short (regardless of hosting) unless our offense becomes more consistent, which hasn't happened yet all season.
Yes, to everything you said.
The Hulls could compete by the end of the season with Carrington for time at wing, and Jerome could get a lot of time there if the 4-5 get settled. Carrington has no guarantees.
Maybe Carrington goes to the 2 and Williams becomes the starting point guard. Or Brown competes for starting time at the 1 or more likely 2, following in Williams' footsteps. Sniezek has no guarantees.
Dodson needs to develop over the off season and I think she will, and will be a major improvement offensively at the 5 when she gets a little more touch. Hopefully her defense will come along too.
At the 4, Fingall could challenge Smith. I think Tara may have been sending Smith a message in the second half of our first C.al game when she left Fingall in and sat Smith.
Having any reliable three point shooting guard (who can also defend) besides Williams will create a big incentive to move Williams to the 1 and Sniezek to the bench. That could come from an improved Wilson or very possibly from Jenna Brown. Brown will have to show she can defend the likes of Asha Thomas, though, before Tara gives her too many minutes.
Let's put it this way--there could be a big shake up for next year as Dodson, Jerome, and Wilson develop and as the Hulls and Brown come in. The team should be better next year despite the loss of Britt, and it could be better the next despite the loss of Smith. We are playing this year without the normal quality and quantity of upper class players as we have had in the past, and that situation is going to improve each year for the next few.
[/quote]
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - TheFarm07 - 02-18-2018
Incidentally, on a somewhat different, but related note, is Brewer injured? I haven't seen her in box scores, even in lopsided games in a long time. What has happened to her?
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - TheFarm07 - 02-18-2018
(02-17-2018, 06:40 PM)81alum link Wrote:Let's put it this way--there could be a big shake up for next year as Dodson, Jerome, and Wilson develop and as the Hulls and Brown come in. The team should be better next year despite the loss of Britt, and it could be better the next despite the loss of Smith. We are playing this year without the normal quality and quantity of upper class players as we have had in the past, and that situation is going to improve each year for the next few.
If we can get a couple of those premiere recruits in the Class of 2019, like Amihere and Haley Jones, it could be very exciting. Imagine the recruiting haul if Tara can pull in Amihere, Haley Jones and Kennedy Brown along with Jump, then we will have excellent talent at every position to pair with Carrington and Fingall who will be seniors and Kiana and Maya who will be juniors by that point.
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - Viking_Guy - 02-18-2018
Two stat lines encapsulate the game:
Alanna Smith, 7-24 from the field, 3-11 from three. She didn't just miss a few short range shots, she missed a lot of them. If she doesn't find her shooting touch again, we're not going to go very far, no matter how good the defense.
Marta Sniezek, 0-1 from the field, 3 assists, in 31 minutes. And one of those assists perfectly encapsulates her game - she had a clear lane to drive, and Anigwe literally retreated to UNDER the basket. Marta had a wide open 8 foot jump shot. Instead, she waited, and threw a very good but very risky bounce pass through two players to a cutting Smith or McPhee that was converted. When a player is willing to throw that low-probability pass, rather than take what should be a gimme short jump shot, that's not good. And C.al figured out she has trouble getting through and off of screens - I couldn't count the number of times she got hung up on a screen, leaving Thomas to drive into the lane, and either hit a short jump shot, or pass to the screener rolling to the basket if their defender came out to help. The plus-minus at the PG position today was unsustainable against a half-way competent team.
Even with all that, and Britt's shooting woes, it was close. Until - Sniezek drops off off Thomas late in the shot clock, and she hits that long three. Smith misses the second of two FTs, then misses the crucial layup that would've again closed the score to 2. Cowling hits another late clock 3, and after a Smith layup, Britt gets a defensive rebound and has it stolen by Cowling, leading to another three by Brown. Those three threes in a minute and a half were what decided the game, and the Cardinal had no answer.
More than that, as others have said, the Bares just had more want-to than Stanford seemed to today, at least for the vast majority of the minutes and players. There are other issues; I've mentioned before, as a team we don't appear to have very good hands - way too many rebounds stripped away, way too many shots stripped on the way up.Â
But today, the secret sauce of the defense just wasn't there, I would've liked to have seen what would've happened with slightly more than 38 hours between the two games; I think another day would've helped Stanford more than C.al. But the Pac-12 hasn't shown much interest in competitive issues with scheduling in any sport (why not flip the men's and women's games? The men, who haven't played in a week, have one game, and it's scheduled for Sunday, giving them less time to recover and plan for next weekend? Were other single-game weeks for opponents scheduled that way?)
Darn.
VG
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - 2006alum - 02-18-2018
Agree with so much of what everyone has said, although I am not quite as down as others. To me, this is statistical regression to the mean. We overperformed at the Oregon schools, and we underperformed a bit this weekend. C.al was predicted by realtimeRPI to beat us in the away game by 72-66; they got two treys more than the stats would predict. They played like a team that had players who had one last chance to get a win against Stanford in 4 years; they were hungrier, hustled more, played with more fire, and just wanted it more. We played like a team that was tired and phoning it in. Other than McPhire, who I agree looked tired but was really trying to will herself to make something happen, everyone else seemed pretty lackadaisical.
I only got to see part of the game (that bad part in the second half), but here's what I noticed:
I share the concerns about Smith - she isn't breaking out the way we had hoped, and she just hasn't developed enough skills beneath the basket to make contested shots the way that Appel or the Ogwumike's can. That leaves her at the high post, which means her shot needs to be on. It hasn't been.
That said, I'm more worried about Carrington - 1-8? What is going on? Have defenses scouted her so effectively that they've taken away her bread and butter shots? I thought a lot of her attempts were so questionable it would be a miracle if they went in. She hasn't had a solid, let alone spectacular, game in ages. She hasn't shot more than 40% since Arizona State, which is also the last game she broke 10 points.
I also thought Johnson had a really weak performance at Haas, with pretty poor rebounding. I felt like Anigwe was clobbering her most of the time and getting away with it. This was a game where we really needed a more physical big at the post. Unfortunately, neither Smith nor Johnson really fills that role. I think both Fingall and Dodson are better at that. I also thought we should have kept Dodson in more. Yes, she needs to develop her touch, but in the limited time I saw her in, she was contesting rebounds much more vigorously than Johnson was.
Defense in general was really poor this game. Probably the worst I've seen since McPhee has been back. We seemed a step slow and their tiny point guard was basically just waltzing around us all second half.
I agree about Marta needing to take more shots - she was oddly quiet this game.
But in terms of next season, I don't think Marta's going anywhere. Tara trusts her a lot, and I don't see a better primary point guard developing in the next season. Maybe Williams, but they seem to play pretty well as a 1-2 combo, and at this point I don't see Wilson becoming a starter, and it seems pretty unlikely Brown or Hull will before the end of next season either.
To me, it seems pretty obvious that Carrington should slot in at the 3 to replace McPhee, Smith remains at the 4, and then one of Dodson or Fingall at the 5 (more probably Dodson, since Fingall seems to have a natural 4 game). All things considered, I think next's year's transition is pretty obvious. I agree that Sniezek, Carrington, and Smith have all had some disappointing games recently, but I haven't seen anything from our bench players to suggest that they aren't our best options at the 1, 3, and 4, respectively, and I'd just be so surprised if Lexie Hull or Jenna Brown comes guns blazing on day one. It has not been typical for our recruits ranked lower than top 10 to start much their freshman season, and that includes the likes of Dodson and Bird, both #11. Amber is the only recent exception I can think of. It seems even less probable now that we're running the Princeton, which is a much harder offense to learn than the Triangle.Â
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - 81alum - 02-18-2018
(02-18-2018, 03:34 AM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:Two stat lines encapsulate the game:Thanks VG. I incorporated a few of your observations at the top (and credited you.) You have always been keenly perceptive about bb.
Alanna Smith, 7-24 from the field, 3-11 from three. She didn't just miss a few short range shots, she missed a lot of them. If she doesn't find her shooting touch again, we're not going to go very far, no matter how good the defense.
Marta Sniezek, 0-1 from the field, 3 assists, in 31 minutes. And one of those assists perfectly encapsulates her game - she had a clear lane to drive, and Anigwe literally retreated to UNDER the basket. Marta had a wide open 8 foot jump shot. Instead, she waited, and threw a very good but very risky bounce pass through two players to a cutting Smith or McPhee that was converted. When a player is willing to throw that low-probability pass, rather than take what should be a gimme short jump shot, that's not good. And C.al figured out she has trouble getting through and off of screens - I couldn't count the number of times she got hung up on a screen, leaving Thomas to drive into the lane, and either hit a short jump shot, or pass to the screener rolling to the basket if their defender came out to help. The plus-minus at the PG position today was unsustainable against a half-way competent team.
All of our observations about Sniezek's lack of scoring sound like a broken record, but today there were other problems. She was not able to contain Asha Thomas, and she was not able to generate assists. One of our worst games all season for lack of assists. But Williams did not do well on either count either, with 0 assists and 3 turnovers. A poor day from our guards.
And I just can't get over 7 turnovers from McPhee, including a couple of really bad ones--the standing still one at the end of the 1st, and the Marta-esque overly aggressive long bounce pass at the critical juncture in the 4th.Â
Here is observation from the press that makes it clear that C.al was taking advantage of our focus on Anigwe. Perhaps the problem was Tara's scheme, although whenever we left Anigwe one-on-one she was unstoppable.
Quote:Guards help Cal, seniors beat arch-rivalhttps://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/Guards-help-Cal-seniors-beat-arch-rival-12622394.php
Stanford forced Cals guards to try to win the game Saturday afternoon. And thats exactly what the Bears backcourt did....I thought our guards were spectacular today, said Gottlieb, who remembers watching Gray-Lawsons virtuoso performance on TV. I think (Thomas) performance today was as memorable as that one. Taking advantage of Stanfords game plan to sag deep in the lane to focus on Kristine Anigwe (11 points, nine rebounds), the Cal guards consistently found driving lanes and regularly connected on pointblank runners and floaters.
And some quotes from the audio press conference:
Tara: "I'm proud of our team for fighting back, but we didn't find a way to get it done. I think our defense let us down basically the whole game. They were just driving in, getting in deep and scoring. When you are in a close game you have to make free throws and layups. Their top players scored 50% or better and we weren't competitive enough."
Question to Alanna: "The stats had Stanford missing 14 layups. How much of this was the C.al defense?" Alanna: "I missed a lot of gimmes that I should have made, right under the basket. Like Tara said, we had layups that we should have made."
Question to Britt: "They seemed to have a lot of possessions that when they scored in the last few seconds of the shot clock. What were they able to do to finish those possessions off?" Britt: "They just made big plays, which you have to do to win...so....."Â
Tara: "We can't always depend on Britt to do all the scoring, or Alanna to do all the scoring. We need more contributions from different people. 14 layups? I mean, come on, really, in a 2 point game? I don't know if it was concentration...if the offense is getting you layups you have to make layups."Â
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - 81alum - 02-18-2018
I was curious about those 14 missed layups. Here are our layup stats:
McPhee: 8/11 on layups
Carrington: 1/4 on layups
Smith: 4/7 on layups
Williams: 3/4 on layups
Johnson: 1/4 on layups
Sniezek: 0/1 on layups
Yes, perhaps Smith should have made one or two more, but contested layups are more like 60% propositions and I think 4/7 is not terrible. McPhee's 8/11 was wonderful, as was Williams 3/4.
Carrington, Johnson, and Sniezek combined for 2/9 and that really hurt.Â
So the layups just confirm what we already knew--we had three offensive players who got way too little support from anyone else.
By the way, since McPhee was 9/22 and 1/7 from three point range, we can calculate that she did not make a single mid range shot.
8/11 layups
0/4 jumpers/floaters
1/7 treys
In the wins in Oregon, McPhee came around the screen and hit quite a number of jumpers from the elbow area. That was entirely missing yesterday. Williams hit one and I thought we might keep it up, but we didn't. Seems to me that with C.al packing it in to prevent McPhee drives and Smith layups, that shot was open. It would have been the mirror image of what they were doing offensively against us.
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - 2006alum - 02-18-2018
(02-18-2018, 07:29 AM)81alum link Wrote:I was curious about those 14 missed layups. Here are our layup stats:
McPhee: 8/11 on layups
Carrington: 1/4 on layups
Smith: 4/7 on layups
Williams: 3/4 on layups
Johnson: 1/4 on layups
Sniezek: 0/1 on layups
Yes, perhaps Smith should have made one or two more, but contested layups are more like 60% propositions and I think 4/7 is not terrible. McPhee's 8/11 was wonderful, as was Williams 3/4.
Carrington, Johnson, and Sniezek combined for 2/9 and that really hurt.Â
So the layups just confirm what we already knew--we had three offensive players who got way too little support from anyone else.
By the way, since McPhee was 9/22 and 1/7 from three point range, we can calculate that she did not make a single mid range shot.
8/11 layups
0/4 jumpers/floaters
1/7 treys
In the wins in Oregon, McPhee came around the screen and hit quite a number of jumpers from the elbow area. That was entirely missing yesterday. Williams hit one and I thought we might keep it up, but we didn't. Seems to me that with C.al packing it in to prevent McPhee drives and Smith layups, that shot was open. It would have been the mirror image of what they were doing offensively against us.
Thanks for this. Helpful stats for unpacking what happened. And you know how I feel about our weaknesses shooting mid-range jumpers. ;)
I also think we need to give the C.al guards a lot of credit. They played really, really well, and as you said, they did what we did not, which was make those mid-range jumpers. I don't know why McPhee is so streaky with that shot. I feel like it's as hit or miss as her treys, but because it's harder to keep stats on, it's easier to overlook.
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - mbdude - 02-18-2018
"And C.al figured out she has trouble getting through and off of screens - I couldn't count the number of times she got hung up on a screen, leaving Thomas to drive into the lane, and either hit a short jump shot, or pass to the screener rolling to the basket if their defender came out to help. The plus-minus at the PG position today was unsustainable against a half-way competent team."
That really bugged me also. It put a lot of pressure on our bigs -decide whether to contest Thomas and leave Cal's bigs alone under the basket - or contest the shot
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - chimera - 02-18-2018
I can't claim to have followed carefully who was guarding Thomas throughout the game, but she is a short, quick guard, maybe an easier guard for Willaims than Sniezek? So if we had Sniezek on her a lot and Marta was struggling to get around screens, maybe Williams is a better choice.Â
Just looked at our stats, mostly conference only, and the big takeaways are first of all, our main scorers, McPhee and Smith, both have sub-.300 three point shooting in conference, which hurts. Second, Carrington has fallen off a cliff as far as offensive production. She's just not been the same since she was out hurt. She's had a few very good games but mostly she has struggled on offense. Third, Dodson and Jerome both are shooting over .500 in conference. Granted, that is limited attempts, but they've both played in the thick of games against good teams, if not for big minutes, so that is not meaningless. Fourth, Sniezek is a good three-point shooter, our best with more than 10 makes, so the sad fact that she won't look for her shot more might be hurting us a lot. Our overall team stats on offense and even on defense do not match up to the level we are accustomed to seeing, not close. The defense statistically is not one of our stronger ones of recent years. It is not bad but it allows more points than usual. It can be very good but clearly is not consistently that great.
Re: WBB: C.al 78 Stanford 66 - TheFarm07 - 02-18-2018
(02-18-2018, 07:29 AM)81alum link Wrote:In the wins in Oregon, McPhee came around the screen and hit quite a number of jumpers from the elbow area. That was entirely missing yesterday. Williams hit one and I thought we might keep it up, but we didn't. Seems to me that with C.al packing it in to prevent McPhee drives and Smith layups, that shot was open. It would have been the mirror image of what they were doing offensively against us.
If I was the opposing team and especially a long established conference foe who plays against Tara 2 to 3 times every season, I would know that Stanford does not like hitting midrange jumpers. Perhaps that was why Oregon was so flummoxed by Brit's onslaught in the fourth quarter; it would have come as a total surprise for them
Over the last ten seasons, you can probably name the Stanford players who shoots a midrange jumper on one hand on a consistent basis night-in, night-out -- Kiana, Amber, Lili, occasionally Brit, Kokenis, who else?
Our other players have been long range shooters such as Karlie, Bri, Bonnie and Pohlen, post players like the Ogwumikes, Ruef and Appel or drivers/slashers to the basket (Marta, Brit, DiJonai).
I think since we really don't have a consistently reliable post player, we are so reliant on our shooting and our streakiness could be somewhat mitigated by attempting shorter range shots and then gaining confidence and slowly regaining our long-range accuracy.