The CardBoard
WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 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: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem (/thread-4611.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 82 Card - 12-31-2012

For those sitting at home and in the mood wallow in misery, the P12TV is replaying the game several times tonight. I'm not in that kind of mood.

Re: WBB: UConn-Stanford: Ruffling Cardinal feathers - M T - 01-01-2013

Coaching:
I believe it was two years ago that Tara said something about being uncomfortable with depending on a player to get 25 points.  I think we're in that situation.  We've got one player who is clearly an All-American, and is the most talented player I've seen in this year's players (unless you consider height to be a talent).  The rest of Stanford mostly seem to be content to serve her the ball rather than to take the initiative.

I disagree that it is solely personnel in WBB, at least if personnel=players.  I think Stanford has outperformed the raw talents of its personnel, because of its coaching.  Coaching involves finding players that can go to your school, getting them to come to your school, teaching them, training them, having a season-long strategy, and game-by-game tactics.  I think we'd agree that coaching played a big role in Stanford beating Baylor.  By the same measure, I'd have to say that coaching had a big role in the big loss as well.

I thought the offense at So. Carolina had to be called by the coaches, or else they didn't instruct the players properly.  I think Saturday's problems were mostly due to failure in the play, but I still think the coach is responsible.  Our players can execute the kinds of plays that VG mentioned.  If any of the players weren't doing what the coaches were calling, I would expect them to get benched and talked to.  I didn't see that happening.  If a player screws up a few times, it is the player's fault.  If the player consistently plays the same way, the coach has to be accepting that play.

The crowd in my area was calling for attacking after getting ahead of the press.  It seems so obvious from the heights of row R.  In my mind, I know the coaches are closer to the play and can see it so much better.  I know we were yelling for the players to attack, but in reality, we're pleading with the coaches to order it.  I had a little glimmer of hope at the start of the 2nd half that we'd start punishing them for the press.  But after 3 possessions or so, it disappeared.

I don't know if Stanford can be the best team at the end of the season.  They weren't necessarily top-10 material on Saturday.
There were so many things that UConn did better in this game than Stanford. 
Play:

I decided to look closely at that first 6:40 of the game where it was close.  We hadn't fallen apart, nor had we reason to depart from our game plan.  Our starters were in.  What were we doing right or wrong and what were they doing better?  I looked at what happened and why things happened.  I wrote down a narrative of the plays (next msg) and who did well or poorly.

As I went through that part, a particular flaw in our team seemed very obvious.  One player consistently was not hustling and was not playing what her position required.  Sometimes she played quite well, but much of the time, she was not participating.  Her guard was able to drop off her at the 3pt line as she was not an offensive threat.

I didn't start out looking for flaws of this player.  But I kept seeing her failing to perform the way her position demands, and it hurt the team.  So I concentrated on her play.  Specifically I saw these kinds of repeated flaws:
  (a) She doesn't get back on defense (so taller, slower players feel it necessary to get back), and she wasn't a defensive threat with a press.
  (b) Not picking up players when she's back on defense
  © A point guard that stands around, or at best strolls on offense??  Even when she's near the basket and the ball is live?
  (d) Weak passes (for example, the pass into Chiney; I could forgive the pass after the steal)
  (e) Thinking she can do more than she can (driving into multiple players, going up against a player 10" taller (at both ends); going for a steal while ignoring a dangerous player)
  (f) Seemingly sulking (after she hit the backboard underside)
She seemed to have two gears: Try to do it all herself or stand around.  At the offensive end, the other team leaves her out on the 3pt line and gets an extra defender to collapse on the paint.

I considered the possibility that I was being too hard on this player.  So I looked at scoring differential while the players were in the game versus when they were out.
During the time she was on the bench, Stanford and UConn played to a tie.  While she was in the game, Stanford lost by 29 points.
Here are the net points per game for the four Stanford lineups that played more than 5 minutes together.

Min NetPts NetP/G  Players
8:40
-3
-13.85
 Kokenis; Ogwumike; Orrange; Samuelson; Tinkle
7:35
-1
-5.27
 Kokenis; Ogwumike; Orrange; Ruef; Tinkle
6:31
3
18.41
 Greenfield; Kokenis; Ogwumike; Samuelson; Tinkle
5:27
-9
-66.06
 Greenfield; Kokenis; Ogwumike; Orrange; Ruef

and for all the players as individuals:

PlayerMinNetPtsNetP/G
Camp
4:48
-1
-8.33
Greenfield
16:51
-9
-21.36
James
1:13
0
0.00
Kokenis
31:32
-18
-22.83
Ogwumike
36:49
-25
-27.16
Orrange
28:41
-29
-40.44
Payne
1:13
0
0.00
Picknell
2:35
0
0.00
Ruef
18:45
-23
-49.07
Samuelson
25:39
-17
-26.51
Tinkle
31:54
-13
-16.30

If you have a tape of the game, and can bear to review it, watch Amber during these clock times in the first half and consider if she is playing with the energy she should be:
18:08-17:39
17:27-17:06
13:36-13:33
13:26-13:11
Once we get into the half-court offense, we're playing 4 on 5 as Amber doesn't seem to be even attempting to contribute.  Also Amber doesn't hustle back on defense.

Frankly, I'll be disappointed if Tara doesn't do something dramatic to shake up the team.  If it were my call, I'd bench Amber for lack of hustle, and lack of playing as a guard, with the hope of getting her to realize she isn't doing what's necessary for the team.

The narrative of the plays in the first 400 seconds will be in the next message.

Re: WBB: UConn - Stanford: The first 400 seconds - M T - 01-01-2013

Narrative of the first 6:40.  Not all good/weak plays are marked, but for the ones marked,
(!) excellent play
(+) good play
(x) weak play
(a-f)  Specific codes for Amber's weak play 

19:51 We start off great with a cut to the basket by Jos(!) who gets the ball from Chiney(+) and a quick 2 pts .
19:25 UConn's star center makes such a bad pass, you have to wonder if this was some sort of rope-a-dope thing. 
19:10 We bring the ball down with decent movement.  Ruef gets an open 3 & misses, where Jos & Chiney are looking for a rebound.
18:59 Still in transition, Chiney switches(x) to take MKL, leaving Ruef stuck on the outside of Dolson who breaks to the basket & gets the pass.  Jos(+) comes to help, disrupting the shot enough for it to miss. Ruef(+) trails Dolson & gets the rebound.
18:44 Good movement.  Amber passes to Chiney who takes a 15' jumper over Dolson.  MKL has her arms out preventing Ruef from getting into the basket (that's a foul). Amber is sandwiched by two players.  Toni is already turning to retreat and Jos(x?) is already on the run.  Chiney(x) also had backed away from any chance to rebound, to the 3pt line.  Only Ruef & the shortest player on the court were thinking about rebounding for Stanford.
18:30 Jos is on Dolson in the block. Chiney is at the 3pt line with Doty 10 feet further out.  Chiney breaks back to help double team Dolson, who passes to Doty at the 3pt line.  Amber leaves MKL to break to cover the wide-open Doty, leaving MKL wide-open on the 3pt line.  Doty passes to MKL. Toni(x) stays 10' back halfway between MKL and Hartley on the 3pt line.  Chiney can't get to MKL in time & the unguarded 50+% 3pt shooter easily hits it.
18:08 Amber does a very weak pass (d) to a double-teamed Chiney.  Even though Chiney is going toward Amber, Doty almost gets the ball.  We recover it, but in VB you'd say we were out of system.  [A lot of standing around © in a poor position by #33 here.  Watch her from her 18:08 to 17:44]  Ruef has to jack up a 3 with 5 seconds on the shot clock and misses.  Dolson blocks out the only Cardinal within 18' of the basket.  Ruef(x) makes a late break for the rebound, which puts her well behind on getting down court.  Amber must have thought she was a rebounder(a) as she was spectating at the 3pt line & gets a late break back too. [What was she thinking?]
17:42 The result is a long pass &  Hartley 1-1 on Toni, resulting in a layup.
17:26 Amber unnecessarily dribbles into a double team (e) in the back court resulting in what was likely to be a turnover (but wasn't). [Again watch her slow motion © from then until Toni scores]  Toni dribbles into the middle of 3 defenders, stops & pops.  IF she hadn't made the shot, Stanford had no rebounders while UConn had 3 under the basket.  When the basket is made, Amber starts to walk back (a) before breaking into a slow trot.
16:57  Jos is guarding MKL with the ball on the 3pt line.  Dolson just walks right through Jos (or, rather, Jos(x) lets her).  MKL has enough room to put up a shot but Ruef(!) just manages to touch it.  Under the basket, Faris turns her back to Chiney and pushes her with her rear so Chiney is out from under the basket. But the shot is so short that Chiney gets it.
16:43  Amber dribbles into an untenable spot (e) but does get the ball out to Toni at the 3pt line.  Rather than doing something constructive, Amber then strolls back © to the 3pt line in a fashion to leave both her & Toni subject to a double-team by their defenders.  Toni(+) backs out, and with the shot clock going under 10, drives to the basket, drawing a foul.  Just as the announcer says Toni hits 96%, she swishes the net, barely.  No rim, no basket, just net.  Think there were some nerves?  Toni swishes the next one, and this one counts.
We then had good defense.  Amber was a bit slow switching to Faris who got a relatively open 3pt shot.  Stanford had 3 rebounders to UConn's 2 and got the ball.
15:42 With 5 seconds on the shot clock, Jos misses a relatively open 3.  Under the basket, it is two on two, but everyone else has bailed out, resulting in a long UConn rebound.
15:33  Hartley flat out runs Ruef, looking like maybe another layup, but Toni diverts her into Amber.  Amber, instead of standing her ground, tries to reach (e) for the ball as Hartley tries to find somewhere to pass to.  Foul on Amber.  The inbound pass goes to Harley for a 3pt attempt, but Ruef(!) again gets a 3pt block.
15:25 Amber brings the ball down, gets inside the 3pt line on the left and throws up a 16' air ball.  Our 2 potential rebounders were blocked out.  A 3rd UConn player gets the missed shot. (Btw, Amber is the last player down the court (a).)
15:05 Stewart, with Chiney on her, drives from the 3pt to the block, where she misses a fading jumper.  Ruef(x) is among those attempting to rebound, but should have instead just blocked out Dolson, who gets a hand on the ball, and the rebound on a bounce.  5'7" Amber tries a double-team trap on 6'5" Dolson (e), who passes out to wide-open Hartley just outside the 3pt line.  Amber can't get back out there, but Hartley misses the wide open 3.  Dolson gets called for an obvious foul on the rebound.
14:45 A little pressure in bringing the ball up, but Stanford has plenty of time.  Tinkle tries a 3, with 2 Stanford rebounders in position.  Hartley pushes Ruef to the floor with her elbow, but no call.
14:30  Hartley & Dolson do a two man play at the top of the key, which gives Hartley a 6' cushion for a 3pt shot.  She sinks it.  If she hadn't, it was 3 on 3 for the rebound.
14:23  A quick trip up the court by Amber (!) & a good feed (!) to Chiney, but she misses the contested layup. I don't see how it wasn't a foul. Burke: "That looked like a foul to me" One of the 4 UConn rebounders pulls it down.
14:17 Amber ignores an unguarded offensive player behind her (b) and joins a triple team on Hartley.  Luckily, she does poke(!) the ball away, avoiding the pass to the wide open 35% 3pt shooter Stewart. 
14:15 She does get the ball and then makes a bad pass (d) to Chiney, but luckily Toni(+) cleans it up. Toni is tripped by Stewart.  After the inbound, Chiney loses both double team players but misses a clear 7' shot on the move.  UConn's 3 rebounders (to Stanford 2) get the ball.
13:52 Toni(x) & Ruef(x) fumble on a switch, resulting in Dolson being 12' from the basket with no one in front of her. Meanwhile Amber was gazing again and lost a player getting behind her (b), also with no one between her and the basket.  Fortunately Dolson went for a 10' jumper (versus take it to the rim for a plus-1 opportunity), but unfortunately it spun in.
13:38 Amber runs the length of the court (!) and finds herself trying to shoot over Dolson for a layup (e).  There is a line between bravery and foolhardiness.  She hits the underside of the basket almost as if she was trying to pass it to herself. Triple teamed, she gets the ball out to a wide open Toni who badly misses a 3.  [Watch Amber do the stroll (c,f) from 13:36 to 13:33!]  Through no fault of her own, the rebound comes Amber's way and she keeps it out of MKL's hands and Toni picks it up.  Toni drives and misses a contested layup, but Chiney follows her in and follows up.

At 13:20 in the first half UConn is up 10-7.  Stanford doesn't score again for almost 6 minutes, after UConn has scored 12 points.
More Amber flaws in the first half:
13:14(b), 12:43©, 12:27(e), 12:24(a), 11:55(b), 10:33©, 10:20-10:10©, 9:55(e), 7:48(?), 7:31-7:26©, 5:55-5:43©, 2:57(e), 1:38(e), 1:30(d), 1:06(d)


Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - treefan - 01-01-2013

I disagree that it is solely personnel in WBB, at least if personnel=players.  I think Stanford has outperformed the raw talents of its personnel, because of its coaching.  Coaching involves finding players that can go to your school, getting them to come to your school, teaching them, training them, having a season-long strategy, and game-by-game tactics.  I think we'd agree that coaching played a big role in Stanford beating Baylor.  By the same measure, I'd have to say that coaching had a big role in the big loss as well.

I agree with your pts. I said even if our guards are not as highly rated as Uconn's coming out of h.s, they should still be able to pass and dribble more efficiently. Sure, we have talented players and Tara gets more out of her average players, but the talent and match up problems that hurt us the most were with Lewis and Stewart (both #1 players out of h.s). Add that Bria Hartley is a more experienced and talented pg than Amber.

We have been successful breaking presses using bigs as targets (Appel, Pedersen, Nneka) against weaker Pac 12 opponents, but it broke down in '08 vs TN and in '10 vs. A&M (with Pohlen running the pg as a 2 guard).  Speaking of '08 (in Tampa F4), I am sure Geno regretted not pressing us sooner given how TN did it with ease. I bet if UConn pressed more in '08 (or in '10)  they would have won, which is why I was not surprised one bit that Geno started the game pressing from the get go on Sat.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 81alum - 01-02-2013

I always appreciate your detailed analysis, MT.  Perhaps that is what the commentators were getting at when they emphasized that Jasmine Camp needed to develop.  Amber had been one of our most promising stars.  She was fine against Baylor, with 3 assists to 1 turnover, and 8 points.  This year she has 59 assists to 38 turnovers (1.55).  Last year it was 112 assists to 57 turnovers (1.96).  So it does seem as if she has taken a step or two back from that terrific freshman year.  Or maybe we have just front-loaded the schedule with the difficult teams.  Still, I do wonder if something happened to her.

(01-01-2013, 11:14 AM)treefan link Wrote:[i]Speaking of '08 (in Tampa F4), I am sure Geno regretted not pressing us sooner given how TN did it with ease. I bet if UConn pressed more in '08 (or in '10)  they would have won, which is why I was not surprised one bit that Geno started the game pressing from the get go on Sat.
After that game, Treefan, Geno was interviewed and said something like "We know how to stop Stanford's offense--we have to press them so they have less time in the half court to run their triangle.  Unfortunately today we did not have the personnel to do it."  UConn had lost a guard to injury earlier and was thin, and apparently Geno thought they did not have a deep enough rotation to press for a whole game.  But he certainly wanted to.

On the subject of "what might have been" we should remember that Ally Beebe was supposed to be playing this year.  She was going to be for Chiney what Chiney had been for Nneka.  Based on her high school performance she was the Stanford player most likely to become an All American other than Chiney.  Her injury is why Tinkle and Ruef have had to play so many minutes.  I will look forward to getting her and Erica McCall playing with Chiney next year.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - M T - 01-02-2013

I think Amber can be the kind of player we need, at least she has the physical talent.  Previously, I had thought of Amber as showing more poor judgement than other players, which is often remedied by more experience.  But what I saw in the UConn game was not simply passing into a crowd or not guarding her player well enough.  She seemed to not be involved in the half court offense and not recognize she needs to hustle back on defense (neither of which shows up in A/TO ratio).

Remember, I only watched Amber in detail in a single half.  Unfortunately, I don't have other games (this year) recorded where we played a challenging opponent. I should get those in the near future and can see whether what I saw is consistent or an aberration.  (One can imagine that Amber had some physical condition that affected this one game, or she might have been coached to minimize her participation in the half-court offense in this game.)

Please remember that I stated that no one player lost the UConn game.


Assist to Turnover ratio has value but has its flaws. By making the ratio, you remove the playing time effect.  (ie, I would argue that you want Assists/40min and TO/40min, but usually people just look at Assists and TO without looking at playing time.  In essence, A/TO is a measure that compensates for whether the player played 10 minutes or 40.) 

It seems a very good statistic for comparing two players with the same role on the same team who played in the same games, but you wouldn't want to compare a point guard to a post.  It might have some value in comparing two guards on different teams if it was computed only for common opponents.  But even then, there are problems with the comparison.  One guard may play on a team that drives & shoots, while the other plays on a team of jump shooters.  The turnovers they make may be similar, but the number of assists may be very different.  Also, in general, if the a player played point guard on a high quality team, you would expect her to get more assists (because their teammates are better shooters or get into position better or are taller ...) than if she played on a low performing team.  Using A/TO to compare players from teams that have few opponents in common is more questionable.  Conceivably, you could tweak it to consider the strength of schedule, but such a measure would be quite inaccurate itself.

In Stanford's case, the assist totals were negligible in both the So. Carolina and UConn game.  I don't think the cause in either could be attributed to the players who made passes, but the lack of assists does affect their A/TO ratios.  In those games, the number of turnovers per 40minutes is a better way to judge the ball-handling performance at different positions.

So, if any player's A/TO is different this year than last isn't necessarily a good indicator that the player's ball-handling has changed.  For Stanford in particular, I'd compute A/TO for the other games, and then consider the So. Carolina and UConn games as special cases.


Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 stats - M T - 01-02-2013

I finally got around to putting the stats into my spreadsheet.  It isn't all bad news.

How bad was our offensive performance?  Stanford got fewer points (35) and fewer field goals (11) than any team we've beaten (UC Davis 38pts on 12 baskets).  Only Hawaii had as few as 3 assists against us, matching our performance in this game.

The killers were the 21% shooting for 2pt shots (by far the worst; next was 44% vs So. Car.) and 14% for 3pt shots (third low of the season).  Our ratio of 3pt shot attempts to 2pt shot attempts was right on our season average.

While we tied our season low with only 1 block, UConn (and, in particular, Dolson) got no blocks.

We were concerned about losing the ball.  We did give up 9 steals (Tie for 3rd most for the season, avg=6), but only had 14 TO (avg 12).  That's a season low (5) in what I call unforced turnovers (TO - Opponent steals, 14-9 = 5).  However, they got 15 points off turnovers while Stanford only got 4.

While it was our season low in (raw) points-in-the-paint (16), PiP was 46% of our (pathetic) scoring, matching our season average.

Likewise, the 3 assists was even lower than the 4 vs So. Car., but A/FG = 27% which was slightly better than 21% in So. Carolina, but well below the next lowest of 41%.

UConn's A/FG ratio was 57% vs their average of 66%.  2pt% was 47% vs average of 58%.  3pt% was 25% vs average of 40%.  UConn was only credited with 4 fast-break points (Stanford 0).  They only got 12 bench points (vs Stanford's 9).

We out-rebounded UConn.  We got 33% of possible offensive rebounds (avg=40%, low=28%) but a season high of 82% of possible defensive rebounds.  Surprising to me, UConn only got 6 OR while we got 27 DR.  Also very interesting is that UConn only got 11 second chance points, while Stanford got 16.  (The dark side of that cloud is that we only got 8 points that weren't FT or 2nd chance points!  UConn had 37.)

Although UConn made a season-high (for our opponents) 13 FT (in 14 FTA), our 13 fouls were only one more than our season average.  UConn was called for 15 fouls.

=======

It seems we did respectably except in shooting percentage (both 2pt and 3pt, and even FT)
So, the question becomes, why did we shoot so poorly?  We know some were because of the clock running low (and so we took a shot we don't normally take), due to their defense being more active than our offense or keeping us from getting passes to shooters in good position.  The hurried shot may be a contributing factor to Toni's 9 misses, as she often was the only one to attack with the ball at the end of the shot clock.  (A related question is why didn't Bonnie get more shots.)

Chiney's 16 misses were probably due to another factor.  I suspect it was due to tough play on her under the basket, but I'd want to confirm that.



Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 81alum - 01-02-2013

MT, do you have a way of determining what percentage of Chiney's shots were from further away than usual?  Perhaps a jumpshot/layup ratio?  I had an odd angle at this game, but I got the impression that in a typical game Chiney is practically under the basket, but in this game many of her shots were coming from the edge of the paint.  I got the feeling that Chiney was simply pushed a few feet further away from the basket than usual.

Also, when Chiney shot and missed, once or twice she got her own OR and scored, but I would be interested to know how many times was  someone other than Chiney in position to get the OR off her miss?  I got the impression that often when she shot there were no other Stanford players coming into the paint.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - WAcard - 01-02-2013

It's not that complicated, I agree with MT on Amber and btw we saw the same thing in the 2nd half against Baylor in the FF, no urgency. She does not push the ball, over dribbles favoring left, there were times when we had 3 players down court. I also think Chiney thought she could do it by herself and missed open players to dribble into a 3 rd Uconn player.

The whole player and AA is a crock IMO, I have seen Beebe IMO she would have struggled to get on the floor as a freshman, maybe got a little more than Tess. Uconn knows how to pass the ball, we have stopped passing the ball and let Amber dribble down the clock. Some good no dribble drills should be a must at this point. Our wings are generally good passers, Toni pushes and kicks way more than Amber but she rarely has the ball until things go wrong. Dribbling is overrated and Uconns efficient use of very little dribbling should prove that. Also screens are not being set, watch how Uconn screen and pass, extremely efficient. A couple of starters do need a gut check as far as not playing hard. Maybe we will see a few adjustments in the next few.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - M T - 01-02-2013

Welcome WAcard!  Good first post.  We welcome your insight and input.

81Alum, the play-by-play listings indicate whether a shot attempt is a layup, a jumper, a 3pt shot, or a dunk.  I have a program to parse those, but hadn't been pulling out individual shot stats like that.  Maybe I'll try to do that this weekend.  (BUT, the PxP are buggy, at least so far as substitutions (sometimes players score when the PxP has them on the bench; sometimes only 4 players are on the court; there is no consistency to show who starts the 2nd half), and have a quirk about the order in which things are printed when they happen at the same clock time.  Obviously minutes played is kept separately from the PxP;  I haven't checked, so it is conceivable that the PxP may disagree with the official stats on shots attempted, etc.)

For games on video, one could make a shot chart.


Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - treefan - 01-03-2013

(01-02-2013, 03:09 PM)WAcard link Wrote:It's not that complicated, I agree with MT on Amber and btw we saw the same thing in the 2nd half against Baylor in the FF, no urgency. She does not push the ball, over dribbles favoring left, there were times when we had 3 players down court. I also think Chiney thought she could do it by herself and missed open players to dribble into a 3 rd Uconn player.

The whole player and AA is a crock IMO, I have seen Beebe IMO she would have struggled to get on the floor as a freshman, maybe got a little more than Tess. Uconn knows how to pass the ball, we have stopped passing the ball and let Amber dribble down the clock. Some good no dribble drills should be a must at this point. Our wings are generally good passers, Toni pushes and kicks way more than Amber but she rarely has the ball until things go wrong. Dribbling is overrated and Uconns efficient use of very little dribbling should prove that. Also screens are not being set, watch how Uconn screen and pass, extremely efficient. A couple of starters do need a gut check as far as not playing hard. Maybe we will see a few adjustments in the next few.

I completely agree that we do not pass efficiently and dribble too much. That said, AAs like Taurasi, Bird and Moore got UConn 5 National Championships. Moore and Taurasi beat team single handedly, including Moore taking it to Cardinal in San Antonio F4.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - meos - 01-04-2013

Trying to distill down my observations over the years in the one-off games [high pressure and often the last game of the year].
This Uconn team is a one-off because there is no other team like them in personnel and system of attack and defense.

Things that Stan players can get away with against lesser opponents (like SC,Tenn) they can't against Uconn (or a final NCAA team). Like trying to split a double team with a dribble. The fools gold is that you can be successful with that against lesser opponents. But with one-off teams, they not only are quicker, they are also going to collide/create contact with you and have 2-3 people waiting for the ball to shake loose. Fundamentals. And skill development. Stanford's best talent is still too one dimensional at this stage in their development. [Looking back, it took Nneka until the summer between her jr going into sr year before she became a much more complete player -- could handle ball well in traffic and could finish with both hands. I'm glad she got there, but I've often wondered why it takes so long for the players at Stan to develop to their potential (if they ever do). ]

Being one dimensional, allows a top one-off team to smother that one dimension by over-playing that strength with multiple defenders. Uconn for example used that tactic to frustrate the team leader enough to begin to crack the morale of the team. Once that began to happen, it began to snowball in effect. The players became less and less effective in their execution as the leader struggled. Another example of bad team play/execution: a Stan player off the bench hits 2 straight 3 pointers; and the team doesn't find a way to get her another shot. Fundamental basketball IQ under pressure.

Now, this game being in Dec means its just about learning lessons the team can use. A prior Stan team lost to Uconn early and found a way to win later in the year.  The players responded well and learned lessons.

One thing I've been impressed with is how the program has a kind of institutional memory that has conveyed prior great player traits to current teams. Like Wiggins determination. Once she helped get them to the final 4, they learned that lesson and kept going. Appel's toughness and team play. Pederson left her best impression on me as a freshman on defense guarding Candace Parker very well.
Pohlen, versility playing positions 1-4. She also made the jump in her sr year, coming back with much better footwork and confidence, culminating in a 31 point game against Uconn. Nneka a natural,leader evolving from raw athlete into refined player in sr year.
I'm guessing it will take another transformative player to show how to develop potential and skills to an elite level before their senior year.

A great program with great results during the year almost every year. But we can still talk about the one or two stinkers a year, one usually at the the time you need people playing to their potential most - that one off final game at season end.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - WAcard - 01-04-2013

Interesting the point you make about splitting a double team, no one at that evel should be splitting a double team, someone is open if there is a double team, that's why you would PASS!