The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - 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 -- Creighton 59 (/thread-23890.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Creighton Tue 7pm - mbdude - 12-20-2022

70 59 stanford 1.21 left

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Creighton Tue 7pm - WBB fan - 12-20-2022



RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Creighton Tue 7pm - BostonCard - 12-20-2022

Stanford wins 72-59.  We outscored them 27-10 in the first quarter and just kind of coasted from there.

Lepolo, as mentioned, was the high scorer.  Four players in double digits (Lepolo 17, Jones 16, Brink 14, Iriafen 11).  Bench again didn't produce much (10 points altogether).  Some pluses:

Lepolo leading Stanford scorers, making 5 threes
Brink with 16 rebounds and only 2 fouls
Jones with 8 assists and only 1 turnover

The bad:
Players not named Lepolo were a combined 2/15 from 3.  Jump was 0/5.
Only 7/12 shooting free throws
Prechtel doesn't look like she's in the box score
After a 27 point first quarter, we scored 17/14/14 in the next three quarters.

BC

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Creighton Tue 7pm - Card10Fan - 12-20-2022

I thought we got too perimeter shot happy. There’s a reason players are being left open out there!  Our advantage was inside and I don’t know that we really tried to take full advantage there. We had zero fast break points and forced only 5 turnovers. We need to be more disruptive on defense. TN only had 6 TO total Sunday. Defense can create and ignite offense but we aren’t doing that. Glad we won but it didn’t feel like an impressive, dominant win.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Creighton Tue 7pm - 81alum - 12-20-2022

Well that was an inconsistent game.  We dominated the 1st quarter, but Creighton outscored us in quarters 2 and 4.  They were physically overmatched but given their limitations they played a smart and effective game.

The Creighton defense was quite interesting.  They absolutely swarmed the paint whenever the ball came inside.  Brink and Jones managed to get some shots off over the tops of the teaming masses around them, but by and large they denied the paint to us.  They did it in part by sagging way off Lepolo.  This is exactly the problem Sniezek used to have, but Lepolo made them pay, going 5/11 from three point range.

They always kept someone on Jump, however, so Jump never got going.  She did, however, have the opportunity to pass around her close defender for 3 assists.

So...clog the paint and blanket Jump was the Creighton defensive plan.  It required that we find a way to score outside the paint and by someone not named Jump, and Lepolo was the answer.  Even before the game at the chalk talk, Kate said that Lepolo needed to be more aggressive with her own shot--and she clearly heard the coaches.

In the first half, but perhaps not in the second, Creighton used an interesting screening technique to get open threes against us.  I've seen us use this too--but not for years.  The three point shooter stands directly behind a teammate who ducks down a little.  It clearly confused our defense about how to defend it.  How are you supposed to defend that?  Perhaps we should use that for Jump.

We had fewer people in double digit minutes (6) than against Tennessee, but more people got in the game for cameo appearances.  This time around Bosgana got 14 minutes--the only bench player to break 10.  It was clearly an effort to relieve Jump, but Bogana only took 2 shots, making one trey.  Overall, we had just 10 bench points.  At the chalk talk, Kate noted that she was not satisfied that we were using our bench sufficiently.  I felt vindicated--clearly the coaches feel the same way, but apparently they have not figured out how to solve the problem yet.

The greatest positive, I thought, was the fact that our "bigs" all seemed to be able to defend a three point shooting team like Creighton.  I think before the game we thought there might be mismatches at both ends and this would result in a high scoring game.  Our bigs might not be able to keep up with and defend the Creighton sharpshooters, and the smaller Creighton players would be unable to defend our bigs.  Well, to a degree, both those predictions were wrong.  Their Lauren Jensen got her 18 points, and Iriafen and Brink got 25 between them.  But none of those point came easily, and a 72-59 win is not exactly an offensive juggernaut.

Overall, we held Creighton to 29% three point shooting and only 20 made baskets, so our defense was good enough.  And while their defense was creative and made it hard for us to use our conventional approach, Lepolo stepped up.  As a result we had 4 players in double digit points. 

Iriafen also had one of her better games in a while.  Betts seemed to do everything right on offense except to finish.  She caught the ball deep and did NOT dribble it, but turned and took close-in shots.  This was exactly what Kate said she needed to do at the chalk talk.  Clearly Betts listened. Unfortunately, her normal soft hands hardened a little tonight and she missed both times.  

It is hard to argue with a win, and a win in which 4 players scored in double digits.  But I am still waiting for that bench scoring to climb.

Biggest takeaway: Lepolo got the message and responded big time!

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Creighton Tue 7pm - martyup - 12-20-2022

[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi1012.photobucket.com%2F...ipo=images]

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.co%2Fimages...ipo=images]

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - treetop11 - 12-21-2022

The pre-game projections proved on target. The Creighton article linked projected us winning 75-59 - a couple of made FTs and just one Jump three would have made that prediction exact. Posted above was eSPN line of us by 13.5 and we won by 13.

Lepolo was more than good and following orders, she frankly saved our bacon. Our O was pretty well stifled by Creighton and we had to resort to lots of passing around the perimeter and late shot clocks. Brink and Jones scored well and performed like AA's but almost every one of their made baskets were tough shots - very few easy. Jump was off tonight from three but will bounce back, and she had some nice cuts and drives for 2 pt. scores. 

Our turnovers and FTs were awful. They have to be cleaned up. Too many unforced TOs and in our gym, we should be 80+% from the line. 

Tonight Belebi should have played more. She was good and she was a good match up for the types of bodies and players Creighton has. 

Brink continues to amaze. OTOH her high number of rebounds were due to many missed jumpers by Creighton and their lack of attacking the O glass.

Tara wasn't happy at half and pointed out a number of things that the team wasn't doing well. I'm sure she was even less happy after the game. I agree with her. We did not play well. We won because of superior size and better athletes. Their coach Flannery is a smart coach. He used tactics similar to what Tara has long used - play off the weakest scorer (Lepolo) and always double or triple on the best (Brink). Unfortunately for Creighton, Lepolo went off and Brink despite players in blue all over her, she is so good and still got her share of points.

Warnoing though: other teams will watch this game and the defense used agst us and we can't count on Lepolo to get 17 and 5 threes if they do - would love to see it, but it's not a good plan to expect that. Coaches need to figure adjustments to others hitting threes, better penetration, and better feeds into the post.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - TonyLima - 12-21-2022

You guys. All season you’ve been hoping for Lepolo to hit threes. She did that. WTF do youwant?

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Creighton Tue 7pm - M T - 12-21-2022

(12-20-2022, 09:41 PM)Card Fan in OR Wrote:  If someone watching and posting could post the score (and any other major stats), it would be greatly appreciated. My only source for game info is thecardboard. Thanks.
There are ways to follow live.

1.  Kzsulive.Stanford.edu
2.  Live stats as linked to from the goStanford.com site. Also from 
http://www.statbroadcast.com/events/statmonitr.php?gid=stan
3. ESPNw

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - TheWildJacko - 12-21-2022

(12-21-2022, 12:14 AM)treetop11 Wrote:  Warnoing though: other teams will watch this game and the defense used agst us and we can't count on Lepolo to get 17 and 5 threes if they do - would love to see it, but it's not a good plan to expect that. Coaches need to figure adjustments to others hitting threes, better penetration, and better feeds into the post.

OR, alternate theory here...

Lepolo hasn't been looking for her shot. Coaches told her to work on it, she listened, went off for 17 points. Turns out she can score when she wants too after all and we just didn't know it. It's just as plausible that this becomes the norm as the opposite.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - M T - 12-21-2022

(12-21-2022, 12:14 AM)treetop11 Wrote:  The pre-game projections proved on target. The Creighton article linked projected us winning 75-59 - a couple of made FTs and just one Jump three would have made that prediction exact. Posted above was eSPN line of us by 13.5 and we won by 13.

If you watched the substitution pattern in this game, and how Tara handles 20-point leads her entire career, you'd have recognized that Stanford starters were fairly easily beating Creighton, but the subs were getting beaten.  The final score is just a reflection of how much time the subs were on the floor.   Tara uses weaker teams as an opportunity to give experience to her subs. 

This weaker team was ranked #21 and so wasn't too weak.  Their style of play (at both ends) countered the usual advantages of our subs.  Stanford did have to play their starters more than usual.  The date of their game against Stanford has probably been marked by an asterisk on their calendar all season.

Up 17 at the end of the first quarter, Tara started the 2nd quarter with 3 subs on the floor.  Then 2 minutes into the 2nd (up 16), she put in a 4th sub.  3 minutes later when the lead shrunk to 12, she pulled Belibi, Nivar, Bosgana, Demetre (and Jones), putting in 4 starters (and Emma-nnopu).
This pattern keeps repeating itself throughout the game.

We were up 22 in the 4th quarter.  Lepolo gets pulled with 8:35 left.  Iriafen gets pulled with 7:18 left.  Brink gets pulled with 6:56 left (up 17).   The margin drops  down to 12 and Tara sends back in 3 starters at 4:05.

The starters averaged +/- of more than 18 in under 30 minutes on the floor.  The subs did not fare so well.

Some thoughts:

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - 81alum - 12-21-2022

Some highlights of the game:

No. 2 Stanford vs. No. 21 Creighton | Highlights | Women's College Basketball | 2022-23 Season - YouTube

At about 2:00 you will see Lepolo's only assist of the game, which was spectacular, followed by Jones's most spectacular shot of the game.  It brought me to my feet, and at least a few others in the stands.

And the presser.  Even if you don't normally watch these interviews, this is one you might enjoy since Jones talks a lot about strategy.  More detailed than they usually are.  And there is a bit of humor.

Stanford Women's Basketball: Creighton Postgame Press Conference - YouTube

Tara brought Jones and Lepolo to the presser, praised Lepolo's three point shooting and also singled out that particular assist she made to Jones.  Also, in line with my own concerns, Tara mentioned that she wanted to work on a deeper rotation but that we bogged down when she did bring them in in the 2nd quarter. 

Lepolo notes that the scouting report was that Creighton would sag off of her and that she would need to step up.  There was a funny exchange.  Note that Talana Lepolo is apparently nicknamed "T."  

Jones: "I see T staying and working every day, and so we all have the confidence in her to shoot it.  On the first skip I passed it and said 'shoot the ball!' and she did.  And I think I skipped it to you two more times..."

Lepolo: "You sure did...."

Jones: "...and said 'Shoot the damn ball!' and you did..."

Tara: "I was saying the same thing!"

Jones: "Ya, we're like this" (looking at Tara with a smile and crossing her fingers.)

Jones went on to say that Lepolo hitting her shot will open up the lanes for Brink and Iriafen and bodes well for Pac 12 play.  Clearly the other players and the coaches have been trying to bring Leplo's offense along and felt that this was the breakthrough game for that.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - TheWildJacko - 12-21-2022

(12-21-2022, 12:14 AM)treetop11 Wrote:  
  • Jones again had the lowest +/- of the starters.

With the fairly important caveat that she played at least 5 1/2 more minutes than any of the other starters (37:14) and thus was in for most of the bad as well as just about all of the good.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - Card10Fan - 12-21-2022

Tara did seem to acknowledge in the presser many of the issues. Some bad substitution patterns. Not forcing turnovers or being aggressive enough defensively. Not playing in transition enough. Too many unforced turnovers. Creighton is another top 25 win. Hopefully we learn from these different styles of play and are better equipped the next time we run into a similar team. Lessons can still be learned from wins.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - RuralFan - 12-21-2022

(12-21-2022, 07:08 AM)81alum Wrote:     

Jones: "I see T staying and working everyday, and so we all have the confidence in her to shoot it.  On the first skip I passed it and said 'shoot the ball!' and she did.  And I think I skipped it to you two more times..."

Lepolo: "You sure did...."

Jones: "...and said 'Shoot the damn ball!' and you did..."

Tara: "I was saying the same thing!"

Jones: "Ya, we're like this" (looking at Tara with a smile and crossing her fingers.)

Jones went on to say that Lepolo hitting her shot will open up the lanes for Brink and Iriafen and bodes well for Pac 12 play.  Clearly the other players and the coaches have been trying to bring Leplo's offense along and felt that this was the breakthrough game for that.

I had not realized the extent that this is Haley's team. Behind that smiling face is someone with a lot of knowledge about basketball who is telling her teammates what to do, and they do it.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - chimera - 12-21-2022

The post-game pressers are usually well worth watching.  Creighton is a tough team if you are not used to their style, which was constant, often seemingly random screens and cuts and movement.  For a top 25 game, this was an easy one.  It was only semi-close because of the sub patterns.  I think the issue is we end up with four or five subs all at once when it would help them more to have two subs with three starters or three subs and two starters more.  We played a bit frazzled at times, maybe sped up by playing such frantic defense against Creighton's funky offense.  Lots of balls went through hands or were dropped, etc.  

Lepolo put to bed any talk that she is a reluctant shooter or can't shoot.  She isn't Jump, but she has a decent shot and is willing to shoot ever after she misses a few.  Jones had another very good passing game and looks to me much more comfortable at the pg spot now, although we haven't been pressed much.  

Kate said Betts is not 100% since before the TN game, but really wants to get out there, for those wondering at her playing time.  This was not the sort of game for her to shine, having to chase littles around the perimeter.  We were switching 1 - 5 so hard work for our bigs and generally they did well.  

Our main issues besides the TOs were simply missing a lot of shots (Jump going 0-fer on her threes, for example) and lack of aggressiveness on defense, something Tara says needs to improve and that they are working on.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - stopandpop - 12-21-2022

(12-21-2022, 10:01 AM)chimera Wrote:  The post-game pressers are usually well worth watching.  Creighton is a tough team if you are not used to their style, which was constant, often seemingly random screens and cuts and movement.  For a top 25 game, this was an easy one.  It was only semi-close because of the sub patterns.  I think the issue is we end up with four or five subs all at once when it would help them more to have two subs with three starters or three subs and two starters more.  We played a bit frazzled at times, maybe sped up by playing such frantic defense against Creighton's funky offense.  Lots of balls went through hands or were dropped, etc.  

Lepolo put to bed any talk that she is a reluctant shooter or can't shoot.  She isn't Jump, but she has a decent shot and is willing to shoot ever after she misses a few.  Jones had another very good passing game and looks to me much more comfortable at the pg spot now, although we haven't been pressed much.  

Kate said Betts is not 100% since before the TN game, but really wants to get out there, for those wondering at her playing time.  This was not the sort of game for her to shine, having to chase littles around the perimeter.  We were switching 1 - 5 so hard work for our bigs and generally they did well.  

Our main issues besides the TOs were simply missing a lot of shots (Jump going 0-fer on her threes, for example) and lack of aggressiveness on defense, something Tara says needs to improve and that they are working on.

The substitution issues have been well-addressed.  The way Creighton packed the paint and doubled/tripled Brink brought back memories of our loss to Western Illinois several years ago.  Fortunately, we found other ways to score last night.  I keep wondering why we're not setting better screens for Jump, especially when our opponents are on her.  Also wonder why Prechtel didn't play.  With her demonstrated ability to hit the 3, she could have helped take the pressure off Hannah and perhaps (also) helped open up the paint more for Brink and Kiki to operate.  Cam continues to amaze me.  She still managed 14 points playing against the Jays' funky defense, snare 16 rebounds and get 2 blocks.  But the best thing that happened last night was Lepolo's emergence as a scorer.  We've debated this issue for a long time and now we have a point guard who is becoming an offensive threat- and just in time for Conference.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - qwerty49 - 12-21-2022

(12-21-2022, 10:01 AM)chimera Wrote:  The post-game pressers are usually well worth watching.  Creighton is a tough team if you are not used to their style, which was constant, often seemingly random screens and cuts and movement.  For a top 25 game, this was an easy one.  It was only semi-close because of the sub patterns.  I think the issue is we end up with four or five subs all at once when it would help them more to have two subs with three starters or three subs and two starters more.  We played a bit frazzled at times, maybe sped up by playing such frantic defense against Creighton's funky offense.  Lots of balls went through hands or were dropped, etc.  

Lepolo put to bed any talk that she is a reluctant shooter or can't shoot.  She isn't Jump, but she has a decent shot and is willing to shoot ever after she misses a few.  Jones had another very good passing game and looks to me much more comfortable at the pg spot now, although we haven't been pressed much.  

Kate said Betts is not 100% since before the TN game, but really wants to get out there, for those wondering at her playing time.  This was not the sort of game for her to shine, having to chase littles around the perimeter.  We were switching 1 - 5 so hard work for our bigs and generally they did well.  

Our main issues besides the TOs were simply missing a lot of shots (Jump going 0-fer on her threes, for example) and lack of aggressiveness on defense, something Tara says needs to improve and that they are working on.

The substitution patterns are a nice minor quibble to have.  But it is getting pretty obvious that against top teams a mix of starters and subs is a lot better than having 4 or 5 subs on the floor.

Betts is obviously a key to that equation as she has the potential to be a real game changer.  She can dominate like Jayne Appel, but I'm not so sure that is best for us.  I still have bad memories of that loss to UConn where Jayne was hobbling around on one leg and we played great D but only led something like 20-17 at the half.  The rest of the offense needs to step up when Betts is in the game, if only to relieve some of the inevitable pressure on her.  Longer term, it's good we don't need too many minutes out of her this year, as I see the priorities with her being 1) taking care of this injury, whatever it is, 2) overall conditioning and hopefully getting at least one or two steps faster down the court, and 3) shaking that habitual single dribble in the low post.  That dribble might come in handy if she develops some high post skills; she would be impossible to stop down the lane.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - BobK - 12-21-2022

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2022/12/21/alameda-native-lepolos-hoop-dreams-come-true-at-stanford

Great story on T

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 -- Creighton 59 - TheWildJacko - 12-21-2022

Seems to be paywalled.