WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - Printable Version

WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - 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 72 Maryland 66 (/thread-23068.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - chimera - 03-26-2022

So much anguish over a win that was a blowout but became a bit close toward the end. Tara was so unworried she did not even take a time out late to advance the ball and avoid a potential turnover trying to inbound and bring the ball up. The 4th quarter was ugly, no doubt. But having a big lead cut late is super common in college basketball. That last made three made the final score look very close but it was a 9 point game before that after all the drama. the line was 7 I think, or around there. This was expected to be close, not a blowout. We had the game well won and subconsciously slacked off the intensity as MD was upping theirs as they fought to save their season. That's all I see, and while it was not great, it is also not worth all this handwringing, IMO.

The opponent has a say in how we play. As we often take an opponent out of their game, sometimes that happens to us. The other guy scouts well, sometimes just outplays our team, that's sports. The idea that we have way more talent then a team like MD is a bit exaggerated, and probably not even true. We may be deeper but they have some very good players who were top recruits coming out of HS too. S. Car had a close game with N. Carolina. NC State needed some late heroics to beat ND after being behind all game. These games are tough. Frankly I don't care if we turn the ball over 20 times in the next game, as long as we win it. Survive and advance.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - Softball Fan - 03-26-2022

Tara stopped the hypocrisy of wearing a mask toward the end of the first half. I say hypocrisy because Tara usually pulls her mask down to talk to players and staff. Just an observation. I'm agnostic about wearing a mask at this point. If you want to wear a mask, fine with me. If you don't want to wear a mask, fine with me.

IMO Lexie has become the most valuable player for Stanford. She can score with a wide variety of shots. Her defense is the toughest and most consistent on the team. And yes all the players are valuable for the success of the team.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - TheWildJacko - 03-26-2022

(03-26-2022, 03:32 PM)paloalto Wrote: Tara stopped the hypocrisy of wearing a mask toward the end of the first half. I say hypocrisy because Tara usually pulls her mask down to talk to players and staff. Just an observation. I'm agnostic about wearing a mask at this point. If you want to wear a mask, fine with me. If you don't want to wear a mask, fine with me.

Why is it hypocritical? Masks are optional in most places including in Maples now (according to the Spokane Regional Health District website, masks are no longer required in gyms in Spokane). It’s not like she’s been scolding other people for not wearing their masks. Inconsistent, possibly, but hypocritical? I think if having your mask on most of the time except when talking to people makes you feel a little more comfortable than simply not wearing it, what’s the harm?

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - Softball Fan - 03-26-2022

Tara can do whatever she wants. The hypocrisy (maybe I should use a different word) as common sense tells me there is more likely to be a transfer of the virus when talking directly to other people. I could be wrong about that. Also why wear a mask for half the game but not the other half of the game.

Once again it was simply a casual observation and nothing more. I agree she can do whatever makes her comfortable.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - jonnyss - 03-26-2022

(03-26-2022, 05:31 PM)paloalto Wrote: Tara can do whatever she wants. The hypocrisy (maybe I should use a different word) is common sense tells me there is more likely to be a transfer of the virus when talking directly to other people. I could be wrong about that. Also why wear a mask for half the game but not the other half of the game.

Once again it was simply a casual observation and nothing more. I agree she can do whatever makes her comfortable.

uh...not a "casual observation" to call someone hypocritical. harsh, not casual. and one observes that the mask is off half the time. one judges such wearing hypocritical.

and wearing your mask half the time gives half the protection, not zero protection.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - Leftcoast - 03-26-2022

Breath in, Breath out.

I too find coaches mask wearing funny. Steve Kerr has been hilarious as game tension ratchets up.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - BosCard - 03-26-2022

(03-26-2022, 12:43 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote:
(03-26-2022, 12:26 PM)2006alum Wrote:
(03-26-2022, 07:19 AM)teejers1 Wrote: P.S. Prechtel has been relegated to an afterthought. My sense is that Ashten feels she needs to score in the first half minute or two she is allocated, lest she won't play again. Thus, she takes a looooong trey (didn't go, but almost did) and that was that. Belibi and Kiki are playing reasonably well, so that's good. Hopefully we won't need a bench player going off from long range in Elite 8 to advance to FF this year (though I guess Jump is technically a bench player now, but teams rarely lose sight of her).

Still haven't had a chance to watch this game yet, but as to this point, to the degree this is an accurate characterization (and I somewhat disagree with it), the problem is that Prechtel is effectively fourth in our post rotation for the 5, behind Brink, Belibi, and Iriafen. Prechtel is a pretty good shot blocker, but she has buttery hands for holding onto rebounds, and she fouls quite frequently when defending in/around the paint. I don't blame Tara for generally not wanting to give her the 5 assignment.

The other big problem is that there's not really a lot of room for her as a high post 4 or stretch-four, because the 4 is often held down by Jones in any starting lineup with the Hulls + Wilson or Jump. We simply have too many guards (Wilson, Hulls, Jump, JVG) who can hit the outside shot, and Jones can not only hold down the high post as a 4 but can also pass or drive to the basket more like a 2.

In short, there's not really one thing Prechtel does better than anyone (or two) on the team, and for whatever reason, she has not developed the same kind of defensive (or offensive) paint presence that Belibi and now even Iriafen have. I really like Prechtel a lot, and appreciate her versatile tool kit, but there's just not a ton for her to do with our current rotation.

+1

Despite her height and size, Prechtel's top offensive skill is shooting the three, rather than posting up and scoring in the paint. Unfortunately for her, we already have a plethora of three point shooters in our guards and wings and they have the quickness and speed to guard their counterpart on the other team.

If we have her in, then we potentially take away an interior scoring threat and make ourselves more dependent on outside shooting unless Tara wants to go with a bigger lineup.

Agree about Prechtel on offense but also think the defensive matchups matter. Prechtel is a pretty good defender against big less mobile posts who shoot most of their shots in the paint. She is strong and long. However, she struggles against mobile posts like Maryland’s Reese or getting out to posts who shoot 3’s or even worse getting switched to a guard and having to guard against a drive. In contrast, Brink, Belibi and Iriafen have the footspeed to stay in front of or block the shots of mobile posts or guards on the perimeter.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - treetop11 - 03-26-2022

Quote:Your complaining about officiating is legendary (and can be counted on like the sun rising in the a.m.). And if you don't think Stanford benefitted immensely by early and dubious calls against Maryland's two best players (who had to sit out big chunks of 1H), we'll just have to disagree on that (and I suspect we will).

The point about Maryland missing VERY OPEN treys in Q4 is so easily overlooked by those saying Stanford won "comfortably." If even one of those had been hit, the pucker would have been amped, and with two more, well . . . who knows? And those critical misses were NOT due to Stanford's great defense - Maryland just missed 'em. Thankfully for Stanford.

But I do agree that Anna played great defense. That was a constant. The only play on O that had me smh from Anna was when she drove to the paint from left perimeter, had an open 6-footer, but opted to try a pass to the right corner that went out of bounds (take that shot). And Kiki had some nice plays, but she needs to be careful about those big swinging swipes she takes at the ball when defending. Those invite whistles.

We'll see about Texas. Of course Stanford can win - they probably will even be favored by Vegas. But they'll need to take better care of the ball and be tougher, mentally and physically.

P.S. Prechtel has been relegated to an afterthought. My sense is that Ashten feels she needs to score in the first half minute or two she is allocated, lest she won't play again. Thus, she takes a looooong trey (didn't go, but almost did) and that was that. Belibi and Kiki are playing reasonably well, so that's good. Hopefully we won't need a bench player going off from long range in Elite 8 to advance to FF this year (though I guess Jump is technically a bench player now, but teams rarely lose sight of her).

Teejers,you are the outlier. Everyone else thought the officiating was bad. The fouls on Diamond were well deserved. And as I wrote, it wasn't just a matter of fouls called/not called, I was unhappy about how the refs made the game choppy. As for my complaints about refs, let me tell you something; I once sat with Pete Newell for 5 hours and talked baseketball. He knew a little bit more about the game than you or I. Pete was extremely critical about the officiating in the game. He didn't simply finger the men and women officials. His main point was that the rules have been for a while and gotten progressively worse, making it difficult to officiate. He told me that the problem is that the NCAA doesn't listen well enough to to former and current coaches who have great insights on how the rules should be set and he gave me several names. I mentioned the ESPN article as just one current example of other people's unhappiness with officiating. For you, it's just a matter of taking a position and if someone disagrees with you,you attack them. That's your MO.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - petersalas - 03-26-2022

what does the mask wearing have to do with the game? I guess I’m just over the whole mask wearing or requirements… Other than that point, I agree wholeheartedly that Lexie is an MVP of this team.. she does so much for this team. I hope she puts on a performance like she did vs Kansas.. I don’t see Stanford losing twice to Texas…

(03-26-2022, 03:32 PM)paloalto Wrote: Tara stopped the hypocrisy of wearing a mask toward the end of the first half. I say hypocrisy because Tara usually pulls her mask down to talk to players and staff. Just an observation. I'm agnostic about wearing a mask at this point. If you want to wear a mask, fine with me. If you don't want to wear a mask, fine with me.

IMO Lexie has become the most valuable player for Stanford. She can score with a wide variety of shots. Her defense is the toughest and most consistent on the team. And yes all the players are valuable for the success of the team.

leftcoast - Leftcoast - 03-26-2022

Anyone else notice that Stanford’s postgame gear is emblazoned with the anachronistic “NIKE SOCCER” in big block letters? I assume this is a paid promotional arrangement but it’s a bit weird.

RE: leftcoast - PVTree - 03-26-2022

(03-26-2022, 11:15 PM)Leftcoast Wrote: Anyone else notice that Stanford’s postgame gear is emblazoned with the anachronistic “NIKE SOCCER” in big block letters? I assume this is a paid promotional arrangement but it’s a bit weird.

In recent games, the WBB team had been wearing "soccer" gear in memory of Katie Meyer. Perhaps this is a continuation to honor her.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - BostonCard - 03-27-2022

Everyone always thinks the reffing is bad, because refs aren’t perfect, make bad calls (or have to make calls in borderline situations) and as biased fans we are more likely to notice borderline calls going against us than calls going our way.

It’s a similar bias that makes us fans think we can call plays better than the coach. The errors are noticeable, but the calls when things go ok are unremarkable.

BC

leftcoast - Leftcoast - 03-27-2022

Thanks, PVTree for connecting the dots. That makes more sense and is something I should have caught.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - teejers1 - 03-27-2022

(03-26-2022, 06:59 PM)treetop11 Wrote:
Quote:Your complaining about officiating is legendary (and can be counted on like the sun rising in the a.m.). And if you don't think Stanford benefitted immensely by early and dubious calls against Maryland's two best players (who had to sit out big chunks of 1H), we'll just have to disagree on that (and I suspect we will).

The point about Maryland missing VERY OPEN treys in Q4 is so easily overlooked by those saying Stanford won "comfortably." If even one of those had been hit, the pucker would have been amped, and with two more, well . . . who knows? And those critical misses were NOT due to Stanford's great defense - Maryland just missed 'em. Thankfully for Stanford.

But I do agree that Anna played great defense. That was a constant. The only play on O that had me smh from Anna was when she drove to the paint from left perimeter, had an open 6-footer, but opted to try a pass to the right corner that went out of bounds (take that shot). And Kiki had some nice plays, but she needs to be careful about those big swinging swipes she takes at the ball when defending. Those invite whistles.

We'll see about Texas. Of course Stanford can win - they probably will even be favored by Vegas. But they'll need to take better care of the ball and be tougher, mentally and physically.

P.S. Prechtel has been relegated to an afterthought. My sense is that Ashten feels she needs to score in the first half minute or two she is allocated, lest she won't play again. Thus, she takes a looooong trey (didn't go, but almost did) and that was that. Belibi and Kiki are playing reasonably well, so that's good. Hopefully we won't need a bench player going off from long range in Elite 8 to advance to FF this year (though I guess Jump is technically a bench player now, but teams rarely lose sight of her).

Teejers,you are the outlier. Everyone else thought the officiating was bad. The fouls on Diamond were well deserved. And as I wrote, it wasn't just a matter of fouls called/not called, I was unhappy about how the refs made the game choppy. As for my complaints about refs, let me tell you something; I once sat with Pete Newell for 5 hours and talked baseketball. He knew a little bit more about the game than you or I. Pete was extremely critical about the officiating in the game. He didn't simply finger the men and women officials. His main point was that the rules have been for a while and gotten progressively worse, making it difficult to officiate. He told me that the problem is that the NCAA doesn't listen well enough to to former and current coaches who have great insights on how the rules should be set and he gave me several names. I mentioned the ESPN article as just one current example of other people's unhappiness with officiating. For you, it's just a matter of taking a position and if someone disagrees with you,you attack them. That's your MO.

1. Refs are NEVER going to be perfect;

2. All you can ask/hope for is consistency in officiating;

3. The refs in Md game were not perfect, but they were pretty consistent. You think the bad calls all (or were mostly) against Stanford. I disagree. It happens.

P.S. You should check all your hoop commentary posts and see how many times/what % of them include some negative commentary on the refs. I'd say it's upwards of 90%. But I could be mistaken . . . maybe it's only 85%. But whatever, it's your prerogative to view the game the way you do, and my prerogative to disagree with your takes . . . if/when I do. If you want to call that "attacking you," that's also your prerogative.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - treetop11 - 03-28-2022

Your comment in your first sentence was meant as a personal attack. You could have simply stated that though others disagreed, you still believed that the officiating was good, end of story - but you felt a need to slam me.

Of course, nothing is perfect, but the rules can be substantially better. Newell gave me several suggestions, one of which the NCAA did adopt - the arc in front of the basket. And frankly, I like the changes that the women's game adopted; quarters, 5 fouls to the bonus per qt., and advancing the ball after a timeout under two mins.

BTW, not meant as a shot at you, but rather as a compliment and support for our team, you several times expressed your concern about our team handling quick guards and that it would be our undoing. Against Texas, our team proved that wrong.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - teejers1 - 03-28-2022

(03-28-2022, 01:04 AM)treetop11 Wrote: Your comment in your first sentence was meant as a personal attack. You could have simply stated that though others disagreed, you still believed that the officiating was good, end of story - but you felt a need to slam me.

Of course, nothing is perfect, but the rules can be substantially better. Newell gave me several suggestions, one of which the NCAA did adopt - the arc in front of the basket. And frankly, I like the changes that the women's game adopted; quarters, 5 fouls to the bonus per qt., and advancing the ball after a timeout under two mins.

BTW, not meant as a shot at you, but rather as a compliment and support for our team, you several times expressed your concern about our team handling quick guards and that it would be our undoing. Against Texas, our team proved that wrong.

First, you can take shots at me - it's nbd. This is just a fan board to vent/comment/bitch/moan/learn stuff/etc.

Second, you and I have different definitions of "handling quick guards." 20 TOs and Haley being forced to bring the ball up is not ideal. But we won, and if that's your definition of "handling it," okay. And I hope we continue to "handle it" under your definition, but I'd also like to see better guard play against pressure D.

Third, two more games to play yet (hopefully).

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - 2006alum - 03-28-2022

This is getting kind of personal. Can we tone this down please? We're on to the final four - lots to be excited about!

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - Jskass - 03-28-2022

time to let things go - agree to disagree and move on.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - teejers1 - 03-28-2022

(03-28-2022, 09:58 AM)Jskass Wrote: time to let things go - agree to disagree and move on.

It's actually the opposite of personal.
Regardless, this isn't kindergarten.
Everyone will be just fine.

So, we've got "too political" police AND "not nice enough" police?
On a board where political discussion and poster interaction is incredibly mild.
Wow.

RE: WBB: Stanford 72 Maryland 66 - treetop11 - 03-28-2022

(03-28-2022, 09:40 AM)teejers1 Wrote:
(03-28-2022, 01:04 AM)treetop11 Wrote: Your comment in your first sentence was meant as a personal attack. You could have simply stated that though others disagreed, you still believed that the officiating was good, end of story - but you felt a need to slam me.

Of course, nothing is perfect, but the rules can be substantially better. Newell gave me several suggestions, one of which the NCAA did adopt - the arc in front of the basket. And frankly, I like the changes that the women's game adopted; quarters, 5 fouls to the bonus per qt., and advancing the ball after a timeout under two mins.

BTW, not meant as a shot at you, but rather as a compliment and support for our team, you several times expressed your concern about our team handling quick guards and that it would be our undoing. Against Texas, our team proved that wrong.

First, you can take shots at me - it's nbd. This is just a fan board to vent/comment/bitch/moan/learn stuff/etc.

Second, you and I have different definitions of "handling quick guards." 20 TOs and Haley being forced to bring the ball up is not ideal. But we won, and if that's your definition of "handling it," okay. And I hope we continue to "handle it" under your definition, but I'd also like to see better guard play against pressure D.

Third, two more games to play yet (hopefully).

I don't believe in taking shots at other posters unless they get nasty. I greatly prefer staying on topic with discussion of the teams, games, etc. It doesn't bother me when people are critical or argue against others' opinions. I just don't like it when there is an attempt to be personal because these fan boards never adequately portray full and accurate context of each poster. The personal attacks just distract.

When I mentioned handling quick guards, my context was that your concern that you expressed in a few posts was, as at least I interpreted it and perhaps you said explicitly, that our team would not be able to handle quick guards and our inability to do so = a loss. I wanted to point out that our team has faced all kinds of opposing styles and I think we agree that high pressure, physical play by quality opponents is our toughest to deal with. Yet, the coaches and players have figured out ways to beat that style and other styles. I was exceptionally happy obviously that we beat Texas, but also that we sent a message that we can handle - by which I meant win - even against perhaps our most significant vulnerability. It's sorta similar to having many weapons on offense where there isn't one or two people you can shut down. From my observations, there is no scheme that we can't defeat. If we lose, it's because we played really bad that game or the opponent was superior.

Also, I don't think that the Texas quick guards were the primary factor for our turnovers. We had a number of unforced turnovers that had little or nothing to do with the Texas defense. We had two long home run passes that were thrown away, several traveling calls of which a few were shuffling feet or sliding their feet, a couple of passes that were frankly just dump, and a few charges. They didn't have that many steals which is why they didn't have any fast break points like in the first game.

What I do think there quick guards and pressure did to us was affect our three point shooting and penetrating drives to the basket. Our players seldom had space on the perimeter both for outside shots and getting lanes to the basket. Even Haley who usually can find a way to get to the basket often had to stop her drive and dribbling or take shots that were even more difficult than her usual acrobatic ones. And on defense, Texas had one more three than the first game, yet still scored 11 points less. Since the Texas post players in both games were not factors on offense, we clearly figured a way to "handle" their quick guards so they didn't scorre as much mid range, drives, and in transition. From what I could tell, our coaches' strategy was to pack it in more and give them more from 3 point. Although Texas still made a number of pull up mid range shots, overall the strategy seemed to work.