WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - 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 vs UC Davis 42 (/thread-22728.html)
+- 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 vs UC Davis 42 (/thread-22728.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - Hurlburt88 - 12-16-2021
I really love this team . . . and last year's. As I watched the replay today, I was surprised at how tentative/frozen Ashten got with the ball 4 ft. from the hoop. Would love to see her have more of a go-to move in that situation
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - M T - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 04:26 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And I am also saying that Jump did not need to play (and should not have played) 37 minutes last night. The outcome was never in doubt. And Jump had more than ample time to "gel" with the other "key players" in 27 minutes, or even 30 minutes. I know people in these parts are adamantly opposed to even questioning a decision by Tara, but c'mon now, let's not leave common sense at the door.
I believe Jump got extended time to hone her skills to better our chances to win the next two games and the rest of the season, not to win a game that was never in doubt. Or maybe to get Jump to be prepared to play with no time to rest during a game.
Obviously you have a different opinion of how to coach a WBB team than Tara. You're welcome to it, but I think it is not appropriate to assert it is common sense. Unless you are pointing out how such a great coach uses uncommon sense to have such a good record.
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - BillBradley - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 06:24 PM)M T Wrote:(12-16-2021, 04:26 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And I am also saying that Jump did not need to play (and should not have played) 37 minutes last night. The outcome was never in doubt. And Jump had more than ample time to "gel" with the other "key players" in 27 minutes, or even 30 minutes. I know people in these parts are adamantly opposed to even questioning a decision by Tara, but c'mon now, let's not leave common sense at the door.
I believe Jump got extended time to hone her skills to better our chances to win the next two games and the rest of the season, not to win a game that was never in doubt. Or maybe to get Jump to be prepared to play with no time to rest during a game.
Obviously you have a different opinion of how to coach a WBB team than Tara. You're welcome to it, but I think it is not appropriate to assert it is common sense. Unless you are pointing out how such a great coach uses uncommon sense to have such a good record.
Totally agree with MT - there is some common sense behind playing Jump extended minutes. She wasn't just left in because she's all of a sudden the teacher's pet.
Teejers, just so you know, I'm not a coach homer. I enjoy critiquing all parts of the game, including the players, the decisions that coaches make and how they run their programs. I am a Tara fan and have come to appreciate her more the more I watch and listen to her. But I agree with you that even the best coaches make mistakes and it's fun to talk about things like this. For me, I don't need the disclaimer about the "people in these parts are opposed to questioning Tara's decisions".
At concept level, I mostly agree with what you are saying. Sure, players will get more confident the more they play and when they are allowed to make mistakes. No revelation/issue there. I can also see giving some of Jump's minutes to other players. Fine, not a big deal one way or the other. But are you really just talking about Hannah's minutes? It doesn't seem so. When I read your posts about this topic of "all our players can play if given the chance" it seems as though you would take a different approach to subbing and minutes distribution. Can you offer more specifics of what you mean? I'd really like to know - if we assume that the core rotation is Brink, Jones, Lexi, Lacie, Jump, Belibi, Wilson, and Prechtel...what are you looking for when it comes to Agnes, Hamilton, Jana, Kiki, Demetre, and Bosgana? I'm really stumped as to how the minutes math might work.
For me, I'm totally fine with a core rotation and bench players, typically underclassmen, who don't get much playing time at all. Basketball is competitive and it's a meritocracy. No need to make more out of it than it is, and I don't "feel badly" for the bench. Everyone does get opportunity in practice. If you don't like your playing time, go kick tail in practice and show the coaches you can help the team. That's what Hannah did. She has always been the best shooter on the team. I bet her freshman year she got told "You need to get stronger, faster, and play better defense." Now look at her.
All this stuff - team culture, the type of player to recruit, etc. - might be Tara's greatest strength. For some reason, the vast majority of her players love their teammates and they love to play for her. Can't say that about a lot of coaches (especially on the men's side!).
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - CompSci87 - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 11:23 AM)WBB fan Wrote:(12-16-2021, 10:25 AM)BobK Wrote: Some of us meet at half time on the inside concourse south end behind about Section 7. Please join us on Jan 7
Sounds great. How will I recognize the group?
We are a very distinguished group of obviously high basketball IQ, so it should be obvious.
But seriously, good question. Anyone else have the Cardboard T-shirt that Yvonne made available a few years ago?
Some Cardboard members who are often gathered are BobK, 81alum, chimera, M T, and me.
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - martyup - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 10:45 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(12-16-2021, 11:23 AM)WBB fan Wrote:(12-16-2021, 10:25 AM)BobK Wrote: Some of us meet at half time on the inside concourse south end behind about Section 7. Please join us on Jan 7
Sounds great. How will I recognize the group?
We are a very distinguished group of obviously high basketball IQ, so it should be obvious.
But seriously, good question. Anyone else have the Cardboard T-shirt that Yvonne made available a few years ago?
Some Cardboard members who are often gathered are BobK, 81alum, chimera, M T, and me.
Is one of you the guy that looks like Santa?
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - CompSci87 - 12-16-2021
(12-16-2021, 10:55 PM)martyup Wrote:(12-16-2021, 10:45 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(12-16-2021, 11:23 AM)WBB fan Wrote:(12-16-2021, 10:25 AM)BobK Wrote: Some of us meet at half time on the inside concourse south end behind about Section 7. Please join us on Jan 7
Sounds great. How will I recognize the group?
We are a very distinguished group of obviously high basketball IQ, so it should be obvious.
But seriously, good question. Anyone else have the Cardboard T-shirt that Yvonne made available a few years ago?
Some Cardboard members who are often gathered are BobK, 81alum, chimera, M T, and me.
Is one of you the guy that looks like Santa?
Nope. I still look just like my Cardboard avatar (photo taken at age 2). Well, almost. BobK has the most grey but isn't built like Santa.
triangle2 - triangle2 - 12-17-2021
(12-16-2021, 08:36 PM)BillBradley Wrote:(12-16-2021, 06:24 PM)M T Wrote:(12-16-2021, 04:26 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And I am also saying that Jump did not need to play (and should not have played) 37 minutes last night. The outcome was never in doubt. And Jump had more than ample time to "gel" with the other "key players" in 27 minutes, or even 30 minutes. I know people in these parts are adamantly opposed to even questioning a decision by Tara, but c'mon now, let's not leave common sense at the door.
I believe Jump got extended time to hone her skills to better our chances to win the next two games and the rest of the season, not to win a game that was never in doubt. Or maybe to get Jump to be prepared to play with no time to rest during a game.
Obviously you have a different opinion of how to coach a WBB team than Tara. You're welcome to it, but I think it is not appropriate to assert it is common sense. Unless you are pointing out how such a great coach uses uncommon sense to have such a good record.
Totally agree with MT - there is some common sense behind playing Jump extended minutes. She wasn't just left in because she's all of a sudden the teacher's pet.
Teejers, just so you know, I'm not a coach homer. I enjoy critiquing all parts of the game, including the players, the decisions that coaches make and how they run their programs. I am a Tara fan and have come to appreciate her more the more I watch and listen to her. But I agree with you that even the best coaches make mistakes and it's fun to talk about things like this. For me, I don't need the disclaimer about the "people in these parts are opposed to questioning Tara's decisions".
At concept level, I mostly agree with what you are saying. Sure, players will get more confident the more they play and when they are allowed to make mistakes. No revelation/issue there. I can also see giving some of Jump's minutes to other players. Fine, not a big deal one way or the other. But are you really just talking about Hannah's minutes? It doesn't seem so. When I read your posts about this topic of "all our players can play if given the chance" it seems as though you would take a different approach to subbing and minutes distribution. Can you offer more specifics of what you mean? I'd really like to know - if we assume that the core rotation is Brink, Jones, Lexi, Lacie, Jump, Belibi, Wilson, and Prechtel...what are you looking for when it comes to Agnes, Hamilton, Jana, Kiki, Demetre, and Bosgana? I'm really stumped as to how the minutes math might work.
For me, I'm totally fine with a core rotation and bench players, typically underclassmen, who don't get much playing time at all. Basketball is competitive and it's a meritocracy. No need to make more out of it than it is, and I don't "feel badly" for the bench. Everyone does get opportunity in practice. If you don't like your playing time, go kick tail in practice and show the coaches you can help the team. That's what Hannah did. She has always been the best shooter on the team. I bet her freshman year she got told "You need to get stronger, faster, and play better defense." Now look at her.
All this stuff - team culture, the type of player to recruit, etc. - might be Tara's greatest strength. For some reason, the vast majority of her players love their teammates and they love to play for her. Can't say that about a lot of coaches (especially on the men's side!).
My guess is that Coach Vanderveer has concluded that the team is better with Jump on the floor and that Jump is going to be in unless she can’t defend a markedly faster/more skilled player. When you look at the bench, it’s difficult to see who subs in as a shooter who spaces the floor the way Jump does. I’ll go out on a limb and say that Bosgana has a similar skill set with better slashing, but she’s unlikely to crack the rotation this season. Emma-Nnopu can sub in and substitute high energy defending and crashing the boards. But, I will say that on the offensive end, the movement and spacing is so much better when Jump is in. Now that she’s getting more of a green light to shoot it, our players commit to screening for her, and defenders have to stay with her instead of dropping down into the lane. The Lacie, Lexie, Jump, Jones, and Brink lineup is interesting. Jones is kind of playing as a 4. Talk about versatility.
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - teejers1 - 12-17-2021
(12-16-2021, 08:36 PM)BillBradley Wrote:(12-16-2021, 06:24 PM)M T Wrote:(12-16-2021, 04:26 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And I am also saying that Jump did not need to play (and should not have played) 37 minutes last night. The outcome was never in doubt. And Jump had more than ample time to "gel" with the other "key players" in 27 minutes, or even 30 minutes. I know people in these parts are adamantly opposed to even questioning a decision by Tara, but c'mon now, let's not leave common sense at the door.
I believe Jump got extended time to hone her skills to better our chances to win the next two games and the rest of the season, not to win a game that was never in doubt. Or maybe to get Jump to be prepared to play with no time to rest during a game.
Obviously you have a different opinion of how to coach a WBB team than Tara. You're welcome to it, but I think it is not appropriate to assert it is common sense. Unless you are pointing out how such a great coach uses uncommon sense to have such a good record.
Totally agree with MT - there is some common sense behind playing Jump extended minutes. She wasn't just left in because she's all of a sudden the teacher's pet.
Teejers, just so you know, I'm not a coach homer. I enjoy critiquing all parts of the game, including the players, the decisions that coaches make and how they run their programs. I am a Tara fan and have come to appreciate her more the more I watch and listen to her. But I agree with you that even the best coaches make mistakes and it's fun to talk about things like this. For me, I don't need the disclaimer about the "people in these parts are opposed to questioning Tara's decisions".
At concept level, I mostly agree with what you are saying. Sure, players will get more confident the more they play and when they are allowed to make mistakes. No revelation/issue there. I can also see giving some of Jump's minutes to other players. Fine, not a big deal one way or the other. But are you really just talking about Hannah's minutes? It doesn't seem so. When I read your posts about this topic of "all our players can play if given the chance" it seems as though you would take a different approach to subbing and minutes distribution. Can you offer more specifics of what you mean? I'd really like to know - if we assume that the core rotation is Brink, Jones, Lexi, Lacie, Jump, Belibi, Wilson, and Prechtel...what are you looking for when it comes to Agnes, Hamilton, Jana, Kiki, Demetre, and Bosgana? I'm really stumped as to how the minutes math might work.
For me, I'm totally fine with a core rotation and bench players, typically underclassmen, who don't get much playing time at all. Basketball is competitive and it's a meritocracy. No need to make more out of it than it is, and I don't "feel badly" for the bench. Everyone does get opportunity in practice. If you don't like your playing time, go kick tail in practice and show the coaches you can help the team. That's what Hannah did. She has always been the best shooter on the team. I bet her freshman year she got told "You need to get stronger, faster, and play better defense." Now look at her.
All this stuff - team culture, the type of player to recruit, etc. - might be Tara's greatest strength. For some reason, the vast majority of her players love their teammates and they love to play for her. Can't say that about a lot of coaches (especially on the men's side!).
All I'm saying is that any starter - in a game with an overmatched opponent like UCDavis - doesn't "need" and probably shouldn't play 37 minutes. I would have held that belief had it been Brink or Jones or Lexie or whomever. It just so happened to be Jump last night. The team "value" for those additional 7 minutes for Jump doesn't strike me as great as the value those minutes could go to boosting confidence of non-starters. That really is the sum and substance of my complaint.
I don't have a "set formula" for Player X getting __ minutes/game, Player Y getting __ minutes/game, etc. Obviously, a coach needs to go with (a) what was shown in practice, (b) how players are performing in the game, and © health and foul situations. The discretion is great and the complaints (including this one) are at the relative margin.
Beyond that, I don't have much to add. Well, other than this: I think we'll have a much better sense of where this team stands vis a vis traditionally dangerous teams after this road trip. I hope the confidence everyone is showing with respect to the guard play - of Hulls and Jump, in particular - proves justified on this roadie.
P.S. It would be nice for Hailey to regain some form from last season's FF.
P.P.S. To Hurlburt, I actually was okay with Prechtel's "reset" down low on the play you reference. If you recall, earlier in the game, there was a play in transition where Prechtel was running toward the hoop on right side and (Jones?) passed to her. Prechtel attempted to catch and finger-roll it to the hoop in one motion - and the ball caromed off the backboard. Prechtel should have caught the ball and "gathered" and then figured what best play from there was. That's what I think she was doing on the play you reference. And while I agree it would be good if Prechtel had a go to move after the gather in back to the basket situations, I was okay with her gathering, realizing she didn't have a good shot, and passing it back out.
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - Hurlburt88 - 12-17-2021
Good analysis of those Prechtel plays, Teejers. Thank you.
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - BobK - 12-17-2021
You may now know that Stanford will be on line only first two weeks of the Winter Qtr. So it’s possible no fans for a bit. However if we can attend Jan 7 I’ll post info on the get together and we can meet Pre game also.
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - martyup - 12-17-2021
(12-17-2021, 08:10 AM)BobK Wrote: You may now know that Stanford will be on line only first two weeks of the Winter Qtr. So it’s possible no fans for a bit. However if we can attend Jan 7 I’ll post info on the get together and we can meet Pre game also.
Wear silly hats so we can spot you on the TV broadcast.
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - teejers1 - 12-17-2021
(12-17-2021, 08:10 AM)BobK Wrote: You may now know that Stanford will be on line only first two weeks of the Winter Qtr. So it’s possible no fans for a bit. However if we can attend Jan 7 I’ll post info on the get together and we can meet Pre game also.
Announced the same day that Stanford relayed it was going on-line for first 2 weeks of winter quarter was this tidbit: of the 2 million people in highly vaccinated Santa Clara County (where Stanford resides), there is a total of 10 Omicron reported cases. And the number of those cases in hospitals? ZERO! [Also, I'd be curious how many of those 10 cases are anywhere near Stanford geographically - that info not disclosed that I saw].
I know the Covid board closed, but good grief, Stanford administrators. Also, Dr. Cody's predicted "deluge" sounds an awful lot like "cold and flue season" . . .
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - BostonCard - 12-17-2021
I thought it was pretty obvious that Tara wants to see if Jump can handle a 37 minute load if needed. You don’t want to find out that she will run out of gas after 30 minutes in a two point elite eight game, do you?
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - 2006alum - 12-17-2021
(12-17-2021, 11:38 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious that Tara wants to see if Jump can handle a 37 minute load if needed. You don’t want to find out that she will run out of gas after 30 minutes in a two point elite eight game, do you?+1. I actually think of everyone on our team, Jump's ceiling is the most uncertain. (Perhaps exempting the frosh.) We all know what Brink, Jones, and Lexie are capable of. But I still don't think we've seen the limits of Jump's potential given how much she continues to transform her game. And I think it's so wise of Tara to figure that out now instead of in March!
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - Farm93 - 12-17-2021
(12-17-2021, 11:11 AM)teejers1 Wrote:Stanford is far from alone on the two week policy after the break. In fact, a number of schools this week changed their finals format for this week to virtual DURING the week. I think a lot of schools are looking at pretty troubling Omnicron outbreaks, and many are making moves without government rules or mandates.(12-17-2021, 08:10 AM)BobK Wrote: You may now know that Stanford will be on line only first two weeks of the Winter Qtr. So it’s possible no fans for a bit. However if we can attend Jan 7 I’ll post info on the get together and we can meet Pre game also.
Announced the same day that Stanford relayed it was going on-line for first 2 weeks of winter quarter was this tidbit: of the 2 million people in highly vaccinated Santa Clara County (where Stanford resides), there is a total of 10 Omicron reported cases. And the number of those cases in hospitals? ZERO! [Also, I'd be curious how many of those 10 cases are anywhere near Stanford geographically - that info not disclosed that I saw].
I know the Covid board closed, but good grief, Stanford administrators. Also, Dr. Cody's predicted "deluge" sounds an awful lot like "cold and flue season" . . .
The slight delay is pretty clever. Many students are likely already have the virus, or will go home and get the virus. So by keeping them at home for two weeks they likely will test positive or get sick at home. The new element in play will be those booster shots requirements that a lot of schools are now requiring. If some families only now start looking for appointments they may not get that booster until after Christmas, so for a lot of schools you then would have to wait a few weeks for that booster to offer the added protection.
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - 2006alum - 12-17-2021
Friendly mod request that we not debate COVID protocols at all, let alone in a thread about a game played 2 days ago. We are not that board anymore, and those kinds of posts get flagged and then we mods have to take the time to sort through, debate whether to warn people, etc.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Go Stanford!
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - WBB fan - 12-17-2021
(12-16-2021, 10:59 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(12-16-2021, 10:55 PM)martyup Wrote:(12-16-2021, 10:45 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(12-16-2021, 11:23 AM)WBB fan Wrote:(12-16-2021, 10:25 AM)BobK Wrote: Some of us meet at half time on the inside concourse south end behind about Section 7. Please join us on Jan 7
Sounds great. How will I recognize the group?
We are a very distinguished group of obviously high basketball IQ, so it should be obvious.
But seriously, good question. Anyone else have the Cardboard T-shirt that Yvonne made available a few years ago?
Some Cardboard members who are often gathered are BobK, 81alum, chimera, M T, and me.
Is one of you the guy that looks like Santa?
Nope. I still look just like my Cardboard avatar (photo taken at age 2). Well, almost. BobK has the most grey but isn't built like Santa.
Well, I guess I'll just bumble around until I run into the most distinguished looking high Stanford WBB IQ group
(12-17-2021, 08:10 AM)BobK Wrote: You may now know that Stanford will be on line only first two weeks of the Winter Qtr. So it’s possible no fans for a bit. However if we can attend Jan 7 I’ll post info on the get together and we can meet Pre game also.
I'd been wondering about that, no fans possibility, after seeing the news this AM. But if we can attend, it will be great to get the info. And pre-game would be nice as well. I really miss the chalktalks!
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - BobK - 12-17-2021
Actually students will be in school but on line. So hope we can attend.
I’ll wear a white Stanford Track & Field to distinguish me from Paul Newman
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - CompSci87 - 12-17-2021
A bit more seriously:
If it helps, you can see a picture of me by clicking on my website link under any of my posts.
There's a small pic of BobK at https://stanfordfbc.org/FBCFiles/organization.htm
RE: WBB: Stanford 68 vs UC Davis 42 - WBB fan - 12-17-2021
(12-17-2021, 01:05 PM)BobK Wrote: Actually students will be in school but on line. So hope we can attend.
I’ll wear a white Stanford Track & Field to distinguish me from Paul Newman
Track and field is my second love, so that sounds really good