The CardBoard
WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - 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: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 (/thread-14816.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - chimera - 11-11-2017

Not a good game, but not the worst, I guess.  As stated above, rebounding needs a whole lot of work.  Why was it so poor?  Not much blocking out going on, basically.  Kaylee got into foul trouble and sat a lot, which can't have helped.  My biggest questions go back to all the pre-season reports compared to what we saw.  We heard a whole lot about Romano and she did start, but she barely played overall.  Whatever she did her in three minutes, it can't have been that bad, or even if it was, if she really has improved so much, seems like she needs more run than that to show it.  This season's Sara James, who if you remember her senior (I think) year, started but after the first few minutes, usually sat a lot?  And what of Fingall, who we heard from Tara was immensely improved?  She did not play a lot early, finally did later, and was ok, not great.  I kinda thought since she did start a few games last season and is supposed to be much improved, we would see more of her on court.  I'm just wondering why players who were highlighted as having taken big steps forward don't seem to be in the rotation in the way that assessment implies they would be.

I do like how Dodson and Jerome played for their first games.  Sniezek did ok against a tough team, but I'd like to see more of our young guards.  Carrington had some great moments but a few ugly ones.  The way too early take from this game for me is feeling excited about the freshmen class and a bit disappointed in the sophs.  May not be fair, but I had hoped to see a lot more from the sophs at this point.

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - chimera - 11-11-2017

Not a good game, but not the worst, I guess.  As stated above, rebounding needs a whole lot of work.  Why was it so poor?  Not much blocking out going on, basically.  Kaylee got into foul trouble and sat a lot, which can't have helped.  My biggest questions go back to all the pre-season reports compared to what we saw.  We heard a whole lot about Romano and she did start, but she barely played overall.  Whatever she did her in three minutes, it can't have been that bad, or even if it was, if she really has improved so much, seems like she needs more run than that to show it.  This season's Sara James, who if you remember her senior (I think) year, started but after the first few minutes, usually sat a lot?  And what of Fingall, who we heard from Tara was immensely improved?  She did not play a lot early, finally did later, and was ok, not great.  I kinda thought since she did start a few games last season and is supposed to be much improved, we would see more of her on court.  I'm just wondering why players who were highlighted as having taken big steps forward don't seem to be in the rotation in the way that assessment implies they would be.

I do like how Dodson and Jerome played for their first games.  Sniezek did ok against a tough team, but I'd like to see more of our young guards.  Carrington had some great moments but a few ugly ones.  The way too early take from this game for me is feeling excited about the freshmen class and a bit disappointed in the sophs.  May not be fair, but I had hoped to see a lot more from the sophs at this point.

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - 2006alum - 11-11-2017

(11-11-2017, 08:32 AM)81alum link Wrote:On the one hand, our lack of offensive rebounding seems to have partly been scheme--we were sending people back on defense the moment we released the shot, so we had few players around to do the offensive rebounding.  While Vanderveer can't have been happy with so few O-boards, it wasn't entirely on our players.  We had 9 offensive rebounds to TOSU's 36 defensive rebounds, meaning that when we shot the ball, we had only a 20% chance of getting a miss back to try again.

But our lack of defensive rebounding was truly atrocious.  TOSU had 28 offensive rebounds and we had 32 defensive rebounds.  When TOSU missed a shot they had a 47% chance of getting it back to try again.  Was this also partly a result of scheme?  Were we releasing players for a potential fast break as soon as the TOSU shots were going up?  I'm not sure.

This is what I don't get. If we were rushing back on offense to prepare defensively, we should have seen a lot of half-court presses, a high number of steals, and significantly better defensive rebounding. If we weren't aggressive policing the basket on defense, then we should have been well positioned for success on the offensive end.

Without having seen the game, I wonder if what happened was something like this: on defense, our players were somewhat oriented toward getting ready for a fast break transition offense, so no one was aggressive under the basket. However, if most of our passes went to McPhee to create something high tempo, if she goes straight to the basket and misses, the defenders are more likely to have gotten there to scoop it up than our other offensive players. But we our players on the subsequent defensive play were mentally preparing for another fast break offensive play, they may never have committed to their defensive positions. This would explain both McPhee's 22 shots on goal, and our atrocious offensive rebounding rate coupled with a surprisingly poor defensive rebounding rate. This is the only way I can understand us having such bad rebounding on both ends.

Does that at all describe what happened?

(11-11-2017, 09:34 AM)chimera link Wrote:The way too early take from this game for me is feeling excited about the freshmen class and a bit disappointed in the sophs.  May not be fair, but I had hoped to see a lot more from the sophs at this point.
I share this a little bit. For as highly touted as Fingall, Carrington, and Wilson were, they have all basically been non-factors thus far in their careers. This is even more true for Brewer, who hasn't really played at all. Between that and the limited play of Coffee and Romano, our combined 8 sophomore and junior players have only really produced 2 consistently valuable players, Smith and Sniezek. 25% is a pretty low rate of return.

It's early, still, especially for the sophomores, and part of this is the result of a senior class that only has one really significant contributor (McPhee), but it makes me think we may have multiple freshmen starting by the end of the season if something doesn't change. As much as we all loved McCall, Karlie, and Roberson for their teamwork and attitude, I think I, at least, may have underestimated just how critical they were to our success, especially on defense.

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - 2006alum - 11-11-2017

(11-11-2017, 08:32 AM)81alum link Wrote:On the one hand, our lack of offensive rebounding seems to have partly been scheme--we were sending people back on defense the moment we released the shot, so we had few players around to do the offensive rebounding.  While Vanderveer can't have been happy with so few O-boards, it wasn't entirely on our players.  We had 9 offensive rebounds to TOSU's 36 defensive rebounds, meaning that when we shot the ball, we had only a 20% chance of getting a miss back to try again.

But our lack of defensive rebounding was truly atrocious.  TOSU had 28 offensive rebounds and we had 32 defensive rebounds.  When TOSU missed a shot they had a 47% chance of getting it back to try again.  Was this also partly a result of scheme?  Were we releasing players for a potential fast break as soon as the TOSU shots were going up?  I'm not sure.

This is what I don't get. If we were rushing back on offense to prepare defensively, we should have seen a lot of half-court presses, a high number of steals, and significantly better defensive rebounding. If we weren't aggressive policing the basket on defense, then we should have been well positioned for success on the offensive end.

Without having seen the game, I wonder if what happened was something like this: on defense, our players were somewhat oriented toward getting ready for a fast break transition offense, so no one was aggressive under the basket. However, if most of our passes went to McPhee to create something high tempo, if she goes straight to the basket and misses, the defenders are more likely to have gotten there to scoop it up than our other offensive players. But we our players on the subsequent defensive play were mentally preparing for another fast break offensive play, they may never have committed to their defensive positions. This would explain both McPhee's 22 shots on goal, and our atrocious offensive rebounding rate coupled with a surprisingly poor defensive rebounding rate. This is the only way I can understand us having such bad rebounding on both ends.

Does that at all describe what happened?

(11-11-2017, 09:34 AM)chimera link Wrote:The way too early take from this game for me is feeling excited about the freshmen class and a bit disappointed in the sophs.  May not be fair, but I had hoped to see a lot more from the sophs at this point.
I share this a little bit. For as highly touted as Fingall, Carrington, and Wilson were, they have all basically been non-factors thus far in their careers. This is even more true for Brewer, who hasn't really played at all. Between that and the limited play of Coffee and Romano, our combined 8 sophomore and junior players have only really produced 2 consistently valuable players, Smith and Sniezek. 25% is a pretty low rate of return.

It's early, still, especially for the sophomores, and part of this is the result of a senior class that only has one really significant contributor (McPhee), but it makes me think we may have multiple freshmen starting by the end of the season if something doesn't change. As much as we all loved McCall, Karlie, and Roberson for their teamwork and attitude, I think I, at least, may have underestimated just how critical they were to our success, especially on defense.

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - IM in OC - 11-11-2017

Just curious has Stanford WBB ever opened 0-2?

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - IM in OC - 11-11-2017

Just curious has Stanford WBB ever opened 0-2?

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - TheFarm07 - 11-11-2017

(11-11-2017, 10:13 AM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=chimera link=topic=17930.msg211991#msg211991 date=1510418043]
The way too early take from this game for me is feeling excited about the freshmen class and a bit disappointed in the sophs.  May not be fair, but I had hoped to see a lot more from the sophs at this point.
I share this a little bit. For as highly touted as Fingall, Carrington, and Wilson were, they have all basically been non-factors thus far in their careers. This is even more true for Brewer, who hasn't really played at all. Between that and the limited play of Coffee and Romano, our combined 8 sophomore and junior players have only really produced 2 consistently valuable players, Smith and Sniezek. 25% is a pretty low rate of return.

It's early, still, especially for the sophomores, and part of this is the result of a senior class that only has one really significant contributor (McPhee), but it makes me think we may have multiple freshmen starting by the end of the season if something doesn't change. As much as we all loved McCall, Karlie, and Roberson for their teamwork and attitude, I think I, at least, may have underestimated just how critical they were to our success, especially on defense.
[/quote]

I thought Carrington was blocked by Karlie at the #2 last year, so she didn't really get a chance to play and also we had Bri, so sometimes Tara played a 2-guard set and pushed Karlie to the #3, also reducing DiJonai's playing time.

Fingall showed promise when Kaylee was out with an injury during the non-conference schedule last year and put up good numbers, but she took a step back when Johnson returned during conference play and her minutes got reduced. Nadia had some very efficient shooting games early on, but then her offensive prowess receded.

Wilson was dealing with her injuries last year and had that great debut against Yale, but unfortunately her ailments limited her time. I can imagine how difficult it can be struggling with all of that plus adjusting to college as well.

So I am still hopeful that the sophomores will improve once they have more playing time. After UConn, we have two games at home against Riverside and Bakersfield, which we should beat comfortably. Hopefully that will give us confidence and the first game or two in the Vegas tourney against Kent State and the winner of Belmont/Gonzaga, while potentially tough, are not at the level of the Buckeyes or Huskies.

With our juniors, Sniezek and Smith obviously have been our two major contributors. For Coffee, I feel like our tall posts, whether it's her or Tess Picknell or Sarah Boothe before her, never really have a chance to integrate fully into the rotation beyond when we need a presence in the paint to absorb some fouls or relieve our frontcourt starters like the Ogwumikes or McCall.

With our depth at guard the last couple seasons, it was tough for Romano to find significant minutes somewhere too when we had Sniezek and Bri. And with the guards, you need someone who has experience running the offense and making the right decisions, so giving Alexa minutes when a game was still undecided was tough.

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - TheFarm07 - 11-11-2017

(11-11-2017, 10:13 AM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=chimera link=topic=17930.msg211991#msg211991 date=1510418043]
The way too early take from this game for me is feeling excited about the freshmen class and a bit disappointed in the sophs.  May not be fair, but I had hoped to see a lot more from the sophs at this point.
I share this a little bit. For as highly touted as Fingall, Carrington, and Wilson were, they have all basically been non-factors thus far in their careers. This is even more true for Brewer, who hasn't really played at all. Between that and the limited play of Coffee and Romano, our combined 8 sophomore and junior players have only really produced 2 consistently valuable players, Smith and Sniezek. 25% is a pretty low rate of return.

It's early, still, especially for the sophomores, and part of this is the result of a senior class that only has one really significant contributor (McPhee), but it makes me think we may have multiple freshmen starting by the end of the season if something doesn't change. As much as we all loved McCall, Karlie, and Roberson for their teamwork and attitude, I think I, at least, may have underestimated just how critical they were to our success, especially on defense.
[/quote]

I thought Carrington was blocked by Karlie at the #2 last year, so she didn't really get a chance to play and also we had Bri, so sometimes Tara played a 2-guard set and pushed Karlie to the #3, also reducing DiJonai's playing time.

Fingall showed promise when Kaylee was out with an injury during the non-conference schedule last year and put up good numbers, but she took a step back when Johnson returned during conference play and her minutes got reduced. Nadia had some very efficient shooting games early on, but then her offensive prowess receded.

Wilson was dealing with her injuries last year and had that great debut against Yale, but unfortunately her ailments limited her time. I can imagine how difficult it can be struggling with all of that plus adjusting to college as well.

So I am still hopeful that the sophomores will improve once they have more playing time. After UConn, we have two games at home against Riverside and Bakersfield, which we should beat comfortably. Hopefully that will give us confidence and the first game or two in the Vegas tourney against Kent State and the winner of Belmont/Gonzaga, while potentially tough, are not at the level of the Buckeyes or Huskies.

With our juniors, Sniezek and Smith obviously have been our two major contributors. For Coffee, I feel like our tall posts, whether it's her or Tess Picknell or Sarah Boothe before her, never really have a chance to integrate fully into the rotation beyond when we need a presence in the paint to absorb some fouls or relieve our frontcourt starters like the Ogwumikes or McCall.

With our depth at guard the last couple seasons, it was tough for Romano to find significant minutes somewhere too when we had Sniezek and Bri. And with the guards, you need someone who has experience running the offense and making the right decisions, so giving Alexa minutes when a game was still undecided was tough.

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - 81alum - 11-11-2017

(11-11-2017, 10:29 AM)IM in OC link Wrote:Just curious has Stanford WBB ever opened 0-2?

Yes.  Earlier in this thread I posted:
Quote:Just checked our records.  The last time Stanford WBB started a season 0-2 was 1997-98.  We have quite frequently dropped one of the first two--Vanderveer often schedules one very tough game at the start of the season.

In 1997 we opened away at Wisconsin and lost 82-90, with 31 turnovers.  Then we went to Purdue and lost 68-78.  That was an ignominious year for other reasons as well.  Despite going 17-1 to win the Pac 10, we lost to the Stanford of the East in the first round of the NCAAs.  That year we had Olympia Scott, Vanessa Nygaard, Kristin Folkl, and Heather Owen among others.  I don't really remember the early part of that season--I imagine that Folkl was not playing yet due to Volleyball, and our guards all seemed very young (Milena Flores and Melody Peterson were sophomores, and I don't recognize the names of the other guards, mostly frosh.) Vanderveer played freshmen for stretches due to foul trouble.  It was the ONLY 0-2 start in Vanderveer's Stanford career.


Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - 81alum - 11-11-2017

(11-11-2017, 10:29 AM)IM in OC link Wrote:Just curious has Stanford WBB ever opened 0-2?

Yes.  Earlier in this thread I posted:
Quote:Just checked our records.  The last time Stanford WBB started a season 0-2 was 1997-98.  We have quite frequently dropped one of the first two--Vanderveer often schedules one very tough game at the start of the season.

In 1997 we opened away at Wisconsin and lost 82-90, with 31 turnovers.  Then we went to Purdue and lost 68-78.  That was an ignominious year for other reasons as well.  Despite going 17-1 to win the Pac 10, we lost to the Stanford of the East in the first round of the NCAAs.  That year we had Olympia Scott, Vanessa Nygaard, Kristin Folkl, and Heather Owen among others.  I don't really remember the early part of that season--I imagine that Folkl was not playing yet due to Volleyball, and our guards all seemed very young (Milena Flores and Melody Peterson were sophomores, and I don't recognize the names of the other guards, mostly frosh.) Vanderveer played freshmen for stretches due to foul trouble.  It was the ONLY 0-2 start in Vanderveer's Stanford career.


Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - BobK - 11-11-2017

A reminder needed.  We lost 3 starters from a Final 4 team and then open with two top 6 teams one of whom has been ceded the national championship

Smith has to adjust to not having McCall.  That's not a small adjustment.    I do think Smith will end up about 20 points a game.

We need solid play from bigs of course and that means Dodson and Fingall must step so Alanna can excell

Rebounding stunk

McPhee was awesome.  😎



Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - BobK - 11-11-2017

A reminder needed.  We lost 3 starters from a Final 4 team and then open with two top 6 teams one of whom has been ceded the national championship

Smith has to adjust to not having McCall.  That's not a small adjustment.    I do think Smith will end up about 20 points a game.

We need solid play from bigs of course and that means Dodson and Fingall must step so Alanna can excell

Rebounding stunk

McPhee was awesome.  😎



Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - qwerty49 - 11-11-2017

While we are in-between OhioSt and UConn, ND just squeaked by Mt St Mary’s 121-65 in a real nailbiter.

Muffet lost several starters from last year’s team and brought in a couple of transfers. One of them, from Nebraska, was the leading scorer. The other, a graduate transfer from some West Coast school, started at PG and had 10 pts and 8 assists in 25 mins.

Let the snarking begin!

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - qwerty49 - 11-11-2017

While we are in-between OhioSt and UConn, ND just squeaked by Mt St Mary’s 121-65 in a real nailbiter.

Muffet lost several starters from last year’s team and brought in a couple of transfers. One of them, from Nebraska, was the leading scorer. The other, a graduate transfer from some West Coast school, started at PG and had 10 pts and 8 assists in 25 mins.

Let the snarking begin!

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - mbdude - 11-11-2017

Alanna was at the high post much of the time on offense; and  defensivel was matched up  against 1 of OSU bigger wings so that also accounted for her low rebound numbers. To say she has never been a good rebounder isn't true  - she averaged almost the same number of rebounds per minute played as Erica last year.

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - mbdude - 11-11-2017

Alanna was at the high post much of the time on offense; and  defensivel was matched up  against 1 of OSU bigger wings so that also accounted for her low rebound numbers. To say she has never been a good rebounder isn't true  - she averaged almost the same number of rebounds per minute played as Erica last year.

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - 81alum - 11-11-2017

(11-11-2017, 03:00 PM)mbdude link Wrote:Alanna was at the high post much of the time on offense; and  defensivel was matched up  against 1 of OSU bigger wings so that also accounted for her low rebound numbers. To say she has never been a good rebounder isn't true  - she averaged almost the same number of rebounds per minute played as Erica last year.
You are correct, I was wrong.  I went back and calculated rebounds per minute played:

16-17
McCall .28
Smith .28
Fingall .22
Johnson .21

For comparison:
Johnson's freshman year:  .40
Johnson's sophomore year: .35
Chiney's senior year: .35
Nneka's senior year: .33
Appel's senior year: .35
Nneka's freshman year: .28

Some of the differences have to do with who you are competing with on your own team for rebounds, so these numbers are not always an accurate measure of rebounding talent.  But it does seem clear that Johnson is capable of much better rebounding.  I suspect that last year she was fighting with injuries even when she was playing. 





Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - 81alum - 11-11-2017

(11-11-2017, 03:00 PM)mbdude link Wrote:Alanna was at the high post much of the time on offense; and  defensivel was matched up  against 1 of OSU bigger wings so that also accounted for her low rebound numbers. To say she has never been a good rebounder isn't true  - she averaged almost the same number of rebounds per minute played as Erica last year.
You are correct, I was wrong.  I went back and calculated rebounds per minute played:

16-17
McCall .28
Smith .28
Fingall .22
Johnson .21

For comparison:
Johnson's freshman year:  .40
Johnson's sophomore year: .35
Chiney's senior year: .35
Nneka's senior year: .33
Appel's senior year: .35
Nneka's freshman year: .28

Some of the differences have to do with who you are competing with on your own team for rebounds, so these numbers are not always an accurate measure of rebounding talent.  But it does seem clear that Johnson is capable of much better rebounding.  I suspect that last year she was fighting with injuries even when she was playing. 





Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - mbdude - 11-11-2017

That you are competing with someone else on your team for rebounds is something people don't realize. Kaylee's rbs/min her freshman year is very good. I remember  she had a couple 20+ rebound games. Last year she appeared to get in foul trouble early and couldn't stay in the game. She probably would  have done best job on Mavuenga if allowed to remain in game (but then there is also the offensive deficiency)

Re: WBB: Ohio State 85 Stanford 64 - mbdude - 11-11-2017

That you are competing with someone else on your team for rebounds is something people don't realize. Kaylee's rbs/min her freshman year is very good. I remember  she had a couple 20+ rebound games. Last year she appeared to get in foul trouble early and couldn't stay in the game. She probably would  have done best job on Mavuenga if allowed to remain in game (but then there is also the offensive deficiency)