The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 68 Oregon State 57 - 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 68 Oregon State 57 (/thread-19036.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - chimera - 03-07-2020

I have mixed feelings about the end.  At the time it made me crazy but once the game was over I thought more, and while I still think it was too much of a slowdown too soon, they were not just on a bad streak where they lost the ability to run the offense.  I think they were deliberately killing the game to save legs for UCLA tonight and it turned out to be more of a problem getting that final shot in the shot clock than they hoped.  Williams was standing and dribbling waiting for the clock to wind down toward the end.  She was not doing that before, so it was a choice.  I think they just blew it on the execution, although maybe not so much since they still won comfortably.  One or two better shots in there or a TO or two less and we don't have this discussion.

I do think the bigger issue was getting flustered by their pressure when OSU pressured late.  I worry about that more than a somewhat ugly attempt to kill the game, that in the end worked out ok.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - 81alum - 03-07-2020

(03-07-2020, 09:18 AM)chimera Wrote:  I do think the bigger issue was getting flustered by their pressure when OSU pressured late.  I worry about that more than a somewhat ugly attempt to kill the game, that in the end worked out ok.
Yes.  Entirely agree.

Especially considering that the press is NOT something that Oregon State often does, and not something they do especially well, and it still gave us problems.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - BobK - 03-07-2020

Goodness we tanked? Winning by 11 is tanking? Sitting on the stands yes agree with those last 5 minutes but we didn’t tank

Lexie and Lacie Guard the best players on the other team. That’s a lot of work. And note we have now played 5 top 20 teams in a row. Playing that hard on D takes a toll

That said we do need Lexie scoring tonight

The 4th foul on Jones was a bit iffy and Rueck went wild coming towards the ref and yelling. Ref keep motioning for him to get off the court. When he didn’t he got T’d. Pretty obvious MT.

All the teams do high fives made me wonder too. And lots of hugs. Eileen did the elbows before the game with the Beaver director of Ops

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - BosCard - 03-07-2020

(03-07-2020, 08:47 AM)81alum Wrote:  I think the frustration with what I will call the "clock killing offense" are partly justified and partly not.  There is always a certain point in a game when your lead compared with the amount of clock that is left justifies making the consumption of clock the most important consideration.  But it is obviously preferable to consume a lot of clock and score after running off the time.  We seem to do very poorly at this.  Not only at the end of games, but also at the end of each quarter when we run the clock down to 10 seconds before starting our play--how often do we score on those plays?  Very rarely.

It seems to me that we need to work harder on those 10 second plays.  We need to execute them more crisply and with greater confidence.  True, when you have only 10 seconds left you are not going to shoot for as high a percentage as when you have an entire shot clock to find an open shot.  But can't we at least occasionally score after running down the clock? 

This gets at a weakness that we have discussed before--players who can manufacture their own shots, or shoot well even when covered (the latter is Slocum's gift.)  Those are the kinds of players who can score with little time remaining.  And Carrington and Jones were two of those kind of players.  The step back jumper that Jones had, or scoring with contact like Carrington can do--those are important skills when there is not enough time left to get open.  We need to develop other players who can do this too.  Williams can to an extent--clearly our best (and maybe only) option in those situations right now.  But that makes her easier to defend.

Agree with 81alum that you also need players on the floor who can manufacture their own offense.  And Williams is the only player for us who can do that.  The three other players who have that ability, Carrington, Jones and Brown are unfortunately all injured.  I don't really know why Wilson can't do that as well since she is so strong and athletic.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - 81alum - 03-07-2020

Lexie did lead the team with assists (5) and played 39 minutes.  Those assists were a major offensive contribution.

I worry that Lexie, Fingall, and Williams all played over 35 minutes.  On these one-game-a-day tournaments, depth is important.

The announcers pointed out that Lacey held Slocum to no points.  Slocum got her points when guarded by others--chiefly Wilson.  Wilson is a terrific defender but Slocum could shoot over her and could not shoot over Lacie.  On the other hand, Lacie expended all 5 fouls doing so.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - CompSci87 - 03-07-2020

(03-07-2020, 02:22 AM)CompSci87 Wrote:  Oops, I had apparently blocked the UW quarterfinal loss out of my mind. So question 1 should have asked about errors (plural) and question 2 should have asked in which years (plural) Stanford didn't win in the quarterfinals.

The second answer to 2: In 2011 the top two seeds, Stanford and UCLA, were given a double bye directly into the semifinals. So Stanford didn't win in the quarterfinals that year either, as they didn't play in them.

Thus the second answer to 1: The story was wrong about Stanford's record in the QFs. It's 16-1, not 17-1. (Unless I missed yet another error somewhere!)

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - UltimateCard - 03-07-2020

(03-07-2020, 01:32 AM)bl82 Wrote:  It's time to talk about Lexie's shooting and particularly what is wrong with it.  She shot 47% for the first 25 games and has been just 31% for the last six games.  While that's a little concerning, what really bothers me is the magnitude of the misses.  So many air balls, so many shots that only hit the backboard, etc.  She was our leading scorer for the first 25 games and now I'm not even convinced she is our second offensive option.  What happened?

I know she works a ridiculous amount on defense and the season has likely taken a cumulative toll on her, but I wonder if there is an injury issue, if she has just lost her confidence or what.  We need Lexie for the tourney and I hope that she can shake off the current slump, but I'm beginning to wonder.

Perhaps she’s hitting the wall. This is her first full season as she was out so much of her freshman year with injury.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - qwerty49 - 03-07-2020

(03-07-2020, 02:24 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote:  
(03-07-2020, 12:55 AM)76lsjumb Wrote:  Why is this coaching staff incapable of teaching and/or motivating the team to finish a game strong? It isn’t that they’re making frosh mistakes. Many of the miscues are being made by our experienced players. We had at least 2, maybe 3, straight shot clock violations in the last few minutes. That’s inexcusable, and a well-coached team wouldn’t make those mistakes. And this wasn’t the first time we have tanked the end of a game that we should have won going away. It’s become a routine.

Any team we face from here on out will likely be good enough to take advantage of this extremely  frustrating tendency.

Cut and paste -- for not only this year but for as long as I've been following the program. Tara is a tremendous coach in so many ways, but her dislike of "running up the score" may be the root cause of this. She rather play very conservatively and run off clock, even at the expense of allowing the opponent to catch up, stopping all of our momentum and derailing our offense, than to play normally and take the acceptable risk, especially being up double digits of missing a thoughtful shot if it means taking another few seconds off the clock.

I don't think using time wisely and continuing to run our offense should be mutually exclusive. We can still work off time off the game clock but still run our offense. One of the problems is that we only have Kiana as a player who can create her own shot when time runs out right now. DiJonai and Haley would have been other options to create spacing on their own or take it to the basket. If I was the opposing coach, I would focus on Kiana and make any other player take the shot in these situations, which they have learned to do.
(03-07-2020, 01:21 AM)76lsjumb Wrote:  
(03-07-2020, 01:06 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Actually, leading by double digits, a shot clock violation is an acceptable outcome.  You would rather score, of course, but if you don’t score, it is better to turn it over after using 30 second of clock than to chuck a ball early in the shit clock oR turn the ball over.

BC

Sorry, not buying it. I agree you don’t want to throw up a bad shot early in the clock, but if you have been playing well all game running your offense to set up good shots, you should keep doing it. That actually reduces the likelihood of a turnover, because players have less of a tendency to be sloppy or tentative. Going several minutes without scoring — as we have a disturbing tendency to do at the end of games — isn’t a good thing.

I am totally with 76lsjumb on this one. Why are a shot clock violation or taking a wild shot/turning the ball over early in the shot clock the only options? Do our players just lose all ability to run a competent, well-run offense later on in a game? If we are in a winning situation, one could assume that meant our offense was clicking earlier in the game. Why not focus on maintaining our rhythm and focus rather than disrupting it?

Plus if you allow the opposing team to cut it down to single digits, then a couple of more missed shots/turnovers by us plus a missed call or a lucky break by them could tie the game. Why risk it? Why let opponents think they can get back in the game?

It would be one thing if there was 2 minutes left to play in the fourth quarter, but we go into this turtle mode as early as midway through a third quarter sometimes, when there's just too much time left in the game.

Not to pile on but let’s remember the obvious — even if you get caught chucking up a prayer before the clock expires, you still have some chance of a rebound and starting the sequence all over again.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - CompSci87 - 03-07-2020

(03-07-2020, 12:14 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  
(03-07-2020, 02:24 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote:  
(03-07-2020, 12:55 AM)76lsjumb Wrote:  Why is this coaching staff incapable of teaching and/or motivating the team to finish a game strong? It isn’t that they’re making frosh mistakes. Many of the miscues are being made by our experienced players. We had at least 2, maybe 3, straight shot clock violations in the last few minutes. That’s inexcusable, and a well-coached team wouldn’t make those mistakes. And this wasn’t the first time we have tanked the end of a game that we should have won going away. It’s become a routine.

Any team we face from here on out will likely be good enough to take advantage of this extremely  frustrating tendency.

Cut and paste -- for not only this year but for as long as I've been following the program. Tara is a tremendous coach in so many ways, but her dislike of "running up the score" may be the root cause of this. She rather play very conservatively and run off clock, even at the expense of allowing the opponent to catch up, stopping all of our momentum and derailing our offense, than to play normally and take the acceptable risk, especially being up double digits of missing a thoughtful shot if it means taking another few seconds off the clock.

I don't think using time wisely and continuing to run our offense should be mutually exclusive. We can still work off time off the game clock but still run our offense. One of the problems is that we only have Kiana as a player who can create her own shot when time runs out right now. DiJonai and Haley would have been other options to create spacing on their own or take it to the basket. If I was the opposing coach, I would focus on Kiana and make any other player take the shot in these situations, which they have learned to do.
(03-07-2020, 01:21 AM)76lsjumb Wrote:  
(03-07-2020, 01:06 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Actually, leading by double digits, a shot clock violation is an acceptable outcome.  You would rather score, of course, but if you don’t score, it is better to turn it over after using 30 second of clock than to chuck a ball early in the shit clock oR turn the ball over.

BC

Sorry, not buying it. I agree you don’t want to throw up a bad shot early in the clock, but if you have been playing well all game running your offense to set up good shots, you should keep doing it. That actually reduces the likelihood of a turnover, because players have less of a tendency to be sloppy or tentative. Going several minutes without scoring — as we have a disturbing tendency to do at the end of games — isn’t a good thing.

I am totally with 76lsjumb on this one. Why are a shot clock violation or taking a wild shot/turning the ball over early in the shot clock the only options? Do our players just lose all ability to run a competent, well-run offense later on in a game? If we are in a winning situation, one could assume that meant our offense was clicking earlier in the game. Why not focus on maintaining our rhythm and focus rather than disrupting it?

Plus if you allow the opposing team to cut it down to single digits, then a couple of more missed shots/turnovers by us plus a missed call or a lucky break by them could tie the game. Why risk it? Why let opponents think they can get back in the game?

It would be one thing if there was 2 minutes left to play in the fourth quarter, but we go into this turtle mode as early as midway through a third quarter sometimes, when there's just too much time left in the game.

Not to pile on but let’s remember the obvious — even if you get caught chucking up a prayer before the clock expires, you still have some chance of a rebound and starting the sequence all over again.

On the other hand, if you chuck up a prayer and the opponent rebounds it, they have a chance at a fast break. If you give up a shot clock violation, at least the opponent has to inbound and you get a chance to set your defense. Best is perhaps to take a decent shot with teammates in good position to rebound or get back on defense.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs Oregon State 8:30 Friday - 76lsjumb - 03-07-2020

(03-07-2020, 12:34 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:  Best is perhaps to take a decent shot with teammates in good position to rebound or get back on defense.

I think this approach is exactly right, although I would describe it a little differently:  Keep playing exactly like we had been playing to get the 15 point lead we had and only convert to turtling at that point when it is virtually certain that we could still win the game without much concern even if we failed to score any more points.  Unfortunately, as pointed out above, this wasn't a one-off situation -- this is the way this coaching staff has approached games for many, many years.  It didn't bite us last night, but it has in the past and likely will in the future.

Also, if the goal was to "keep legs fresh," as someone suggested, why not take Kiana out, let Anna handle the ball, and put in Hannah, who ,at a minimum, could serve as a decoy [or, if not guarded] put up a 3 with a pretty good chance of going in?  Having Kiana play all 40 minutes defeats the purpose of "keeping legs fresh."

My two cents...
(03-07-2020, 09:51 AM)BobK Wrote:  Goodness we tanked?  Winning by 11 is tanking?  Sitting on the stands yes agree with those last 5 minutes but we didn’t tank

We didn't win the end of the game [which is what I was referring to in my "tanking" comment] by 11 points; we went for several minutes without scoring, had multiple shot clock violations, and LOST the fourth quarter by 6 points.  I stand by my assessment that that constitutes "tanking the end of the game," even if we managed to avoid the fate of the men against USC earlier this season [prior to which I would have bet money a team couldn't lose a game with the lead we had and the amount of time left in the game when we had it].

Fortunately for us, the women had ownage [as Mike Krukow would put it] of Oregon State this season.  [Unfortunately, however, the men didn't...  :-(  ]

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Oregon State 57 - jonnyss - 03-07-2020

actually, we need an animal mascot. a tree is a bit lame. how about the stanford turtles? 

our motto? stanford turtles all the way down!

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Oregon State 57 - 81alum - 03-07-2020

Highlights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D9JBJu31YU&feature=youtu.be

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Oregon State 57 - 76lsjumb - 03-07-2020

Oregon just went into the fourth quarter with an eleven point lead over Arizona... and won by 18.  Apparently, Ducks don't turtle.  Maybe that's one of the reasons why they're #1/#2 in the country.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Oregon State 57 - CompSci87 - 03-07-2020

(03-07-2020, 08:51 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:  Oregon just went into the fourth quarter with an eleven point lead over Arizona... and won by 18.  Apparently, Ducks don't turtle.  Maybe that's one of the reasons why they're #1/#2 in the country.

They did turtle a bit and took one 30 second violation, but not until less than 3 minutes left.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Oregon State 57 - BobK - 03-07-2020

Agree with comp Oregon certainly turtled. And Graves insisting on it. Of course Sabrina hit two late threes