The CardBoard
MBB: Stanford/Wofford - 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: MBB: Stanford/Wofford (/thread-8247.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - StanFan88 - 11-15-2014

(11-14-2014, 11:43 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:BC--

Nope.  The NCAA INSISTS on calling the play-in games the first round of the NCAA tourney.  The round of 64 is officially the second round.  So if you are an automatic qualifier, as Wofford was by virtue of winning the Southern Conference tourney, and you aren't seeded into a play-in game, you can proudly claim to be a second-round team, no matter the outcome of your game.

VG

Just because the NCAA calls it something doesn't make it so.  AFAIC, it's play-in and first round.

Curious how many players are returning from last year's Wofford roster?

Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - burger - 11-15-2014

(11-15-2014, 07:41 AM)StanFan88 link Wrote:- Let's see how Nastic plays when he's not 3+ in and 30+ lbs bigger than everyone on the opponents' roster.  Every P12 team can put at least one player on the floor who matches up with him size-wise.
You mean like last year when Nastic had a streak of 16 straight shots made through the P-12 Tournament and our first round game (sorry, NCAA) against New Mexico?  Those weren't crappy opponents with undersized rosters. 

Nastic is a phenomenally efficient shooter close to the basket.  Wofford seemed to emphasize perimeter defense last night, and that kept Randle and Brown from doing a lot of damage but left things open for Nastic and, sometimes, Travis. 

I agree with StanFan88 that beyond the 3 seniors and Travis, no one else looked very good.  But for most of our remaining players this was either their first or second college game or their first game in 2 years (Sanders).  So we should expect some nerves and rust.  The key will be to see if the young guys improve over the pre-conference games.

But if Travis plays as well as he did last night and the 3 seniors live up to expectations, we will be a hard team to defend. If you defend the perimeter aggressively, you leave Nastic or Reed one-on-one.  And if you double our bigs, that should leave openings for the guards.  One thing that was really nice to see yesterday was that Nastic made a couple of beautiful passes to guys streaking to the basket.  In fact, Nastic's 4 assists led the team.  That, of course, does not speak well for our guard play.

Anyway, color me marginally optimistic about the team while awaiting further data.

Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - 81alum - 11-15-2014

(11-15-2014, 06:02 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Saw a bit of the Ca.l game online and heard Mike Montgomery touting the importance of mid-range jumpers, as he lamented how most kids only want to dunk and shoot 3s.

Obviously 33% from three-point range is as good as 50% inside the arc, but the reality is most players don't shoot that well from three.  The pull-up mid-range jumper is usually the least contested shot, so Montgomery doesn't understand why more players don't develop their mid-range game.
I don't claim to know which philosophy is "right" but I understand that in the European game,  the face-up jump shot is essential for posts and forwards.  The threat to pull up for a mid range jump shot is what pulls defenders out from under the basket and opens lanes for a drive.  Kate said yesterday that 2015 wbb recruit Alanna Smith is that kind of player.

I won't pick sides, but there seems to be two respectable but diverging philosophies about the utility of the mid range jump shot. 

Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - StanFan88 - 11-15-2014

(11-15-2014, 08:36 AM)burger link Wrote:[quote author=StanFan88 link=topic=11108.msg105160#msg105160 date=1416062490]
- Let's see how Nastic plays when he's not 3+ in and 30+ lbs bigger than everyone on the opponents' roster.  Every P12 team can put at least one player on the floor who matches up with him size-wise.
You mean like last year when Nastic had a streak of 16 straight shots made through the P-12 Tournament and our first round game (sorry, NCAA) against New Mexico?  Those weren't crappy opponents with undersized rosters.
[/quote]

So Nastic had two good weeks while the rest of the team that had one great week.  Where was that before those two weeks?  Season has ten times that many weeks.

Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - scorecard - 11-15-2014

(11-15-2014, 07:46 AM)StanFan88 link Wrote:Just because the NCAA calls it something doesn't make it so.  AFAIC, it's play-in and first round.

Curious how many players are returning from last year's Wofford roster?

Wofford had all 5 starters back and only lost 2 players (the program says 95% of the scoring and 91% of the rebounding from last year's team).  Tough game for them, playing at what would be midnight Eastern time. 

Some of my thoughts I had from watching the game:

- Nastic looked great against overmatched competition.  Showed an array of offensive moves, jump hook, step through, drop step, pump fake and mid-range jumper.  It was all working for him. Can't expect that every night against better competition, but 2 years ago, he would never even had half that output on his best night.  He has improved a great deal (he was almost unwatchable for me 2 years ago), and has turned himself from a liability to a real asset.  One other thing he has carried over from the tournament seems to be more fire and emotion, which I love to see from him.
- Randle had a forgettable game, forced some shots, just didn't have the touch on that night, even some easy layups for him didn't go down, lost his man a few times on defense
- Anthony Brown looked generally quite good, looked like he was moving better than last year, especially on one play where he played the passing lanes for a steal and then used his length and athleticism for a driving layup over an undercutting defender. 
- Reid Travis is physically ready to play.  He adds that toughness factor down low that we were really lacking. He looked a bit nervous offensively, but I think he can shoot better than he did, I think those are just first game jitters for a freshman.  They had him trying to feed Nastic a couple times, but they are going to need to work on that aspect of his game.
- Rosco Allen did not have a good game, but I wouldn't call him a bust yet.  Would like to see him be more assertive though.
- Defense picked up in the 2nd half, Marcus Allen in particular made a number of hustle plays on the perimeter and even on the glass.  When the energy and effort picked up on defense, they really seemed to rattle Wofford.  Would have liked to see more of that through other parts of the game.
- Cartwright got limited minutes, but really liked the way he got after it on defense, along with Marcus Allen, they can apply some nice on-the-ball pressure and energy off the bench
- Crowd was quite sparse, really hope the fans get behind the team.  The early home schedule is underwhelming, but there was really no atmosphere or home court advantage
- I read somewhere that Verhoeven had hip surgery.  Does anyone know if he is coming back at all this year?



Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - washingtonismoney - 11-15-2014

(11-15-2014, 09:09 AM)81alum link Wrote:I don't claim to know which philosophy is "right" but I understand that in the European game,  the face-up jump shot is essential for posts and forwards.

European big men shoot threes. Sometimes mid-range shots, but usually threes.

The point isn't to completely eliminate midrange jumpers or pass up open ones. The point is, if you have a ratio tilted towards midrange jumpers over three-point shots, you won't be very good at offense. The Stanford offense took a lot of midrange jumpers and not a lot of three point shots in the first half and consequently wasn't terribly good on offense. When it rediscovered that Nastic was bigger than everyone else it got a lot better. This was obvious the whole time -- was obvious against Dayton last year -- but the team tends to forget and Dawkins is apparently shy about reminding them. Certainly it's not as if Dawkins is installing some sort of free-flowing system that gets everyone good shots, so he might as well yell at the team to get the ball in the hands of the best mismatch on the floor.

Anyway, while I'm being grumpy and contrarian I wasn't as impressed with Travis as the rest of you. There are positive signs -- he seems quite quick, very mobile, cuts well. But then there aren't so many -- his post game appears limited at this point, the jump shot is meh, and I'm not sure about his touch around the rim. On the evidence of one game -- I know, small sample size -- I don't see why he'd be a threat to leave early. Feel free to resurrect this prediction later if it looks stupid, but the NBA isn't exactly lusting for undersized, somewhat athletic power forwards with OK skills.

Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - scorecard - 11-15-2014

(11-15-2014, 12:38 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Anyway, while I'm being grumpy and contrarian I wasn't as impressed with Travis as the rest of you. There are positive signs -- he seems quite quick, very mobile, cuts well. But then there aren't so many -- his post game appears limited at this point, the jump shot is meh, and I'm not sure about his touch around the rim. On the evidence of one game -- I know, small sample size -- I don't see why he'd be a threat to leave early. Feel free to resurrect this prediction later if it looks stupid, but the NBA isn't exactly lusting for undersized, somewhat athletic power forwards with OK skills.

I don't think he is a threat to leave early at all.  I agree that his game (as presently constructed, and with limited viewing) does not appear to translate to the NBA, but I am not excited about him for the sake of the NBA, I am excited about what he can do for Stanford.  He is the perfect type of player for Stanford, precisely because he is a high level player for the college game who won't be a simple one-and-done (I'd expect 3 years at a minimum, but probably all 4).  He fills a definite need for interior toughness and he is ready to go right now.  I would be happy to some extent even if all he gave us was a game like last night, but I am even more excited because I am certain his best is yet to come.

Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - oldalum - 11-15-2014

I don't really understand the skepticism about a freshman starting in his first collegiate game (Travis). A great thing about college players is that the majority get better over time, some dramatically so (see, e.g., Nastic, Landry, etc.). Travis is strong, athletic, and has some basketball tools. Seems to me he's got a lot of potential. Pleasant surprise to see him last night.

Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - washingtonismoney - 11-15-2014

(11-15-2014, 02:33 PM)oldalum link Wrote:I don't really understand the skepticism about a freshman starting in his first collegiate game (Travis). A great thing about college players is that the majority get better over time, some dramatically so (see, e.g., Nastic, Landry, etc.). Travis is strong, athletic, and has some basketball tools. Seems to me he's got a lot of potential. Pleasant surprise to see him last night.

Yeah, he has potential. Just think the idea that he might leave early getting wellll ahead of ourselves.

Re: MBB: Stanford/Wofford - oldalum - 11-15-2014

I agree with that! Let's just look forward to watching him improve (especially his free throw shooting)