The CardBoard
wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - 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: Santa Clara Game Thread (/thread-10772.html)

Pages: 1 2

wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - TheFarm07 - 11-23-2015

Tied 22-22 at half.

Atrocious offense, only 6 made field goals the entire first half for a 25% shooting percentage and 13 turnovers, most of them very sloppy.

We couldn't figure out their zone, but 12 free throw trips is keeping us into it.

For the last 2 years, Tara has been promising a more aggressive offense, but it sputters and is inconsistent most of the time.

Luckily, Santa Clara is just as cold as we are (9/37 = 24.7%) and 0 for 9 from the 3-pt line.

We would be down by 10+, if not more to a decent team.

wBB: Stanford 58 Santa Clara 61 - TheFarm07 - 11-23-2015

So, maybe I've been spoiled.  I didn't start watching our women's team in earnest until the end of the Candice Wiggins era and our run to the national title game in 2008.  Since then, I've gotten used to having most games be a formality unless a legendary coach was sitting on the opponent's bench.

Now, we have to get used to a program in temporary decline.  I was too optimistic that we could reap the benefits of our success during the Appel-Ogwumike era and be able to reload, instead of rebuild, like other top programs.

This loss tonight is as confounding and embarrassing as the loss last year to Arizona.  Two days after beating a ranked GW team that we all worried about, we laid a big fat egg on the court.  Tonight was a major setback, considering how badly Santa Clara played earlier in the season against two of our conference foes.

Tara is a great coach and she must fix these problems as we head to Florida.  There's not much turnaround time to fix these glaring problems, however.

We lost to a Santa Clara team:
We committed 26 turnovers, because apparently we haven't seen a zone defense before and we were playing against the Minnesota Lynx or something.  Our passing was picked off more often than a bad QB's worst game.

We lost despite having a better shooting percentage (35.8%) to (31%) and them only making 1 3-pt shot the entire game (1 of 16), because they shot the ball 19 more times than we did (due to our 26 turnovers and their 21 offensive rebounds.

The offense made strides in the GW game and was okay against Gonzaga and Davis, but was awful tonight.

Individually, Erica had another double-double and Lili had 20+ points, but Erica only took 9 shots the entire game and Lili had 6 turnovers.

Karlie had foul trouble and sat large chunks of the 2nd half.  Kaylee inexplicably only had 2 rebounds the entire game.

Alanna only took 1 shot the entire game too and McPhee was ice-cold (1/8) despite a combined 12 rebounds from them.

There's something wrong with this: 7 of McPhee's 8 shot attempts were from 3-point range, largely because of Santa Clara's zone, but that isn't her game.  She is not a sharpshooter and to have her take that many long-range shots is troubling.  Meanwhile, Smith, despite being a freshman is an offensive threat and only shot the ball once.

Tara inserted Coffee in early on in the 2nd half and she made a basket, but was quickly pulled.


Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - 81alum - 11-23-2015

I got home to check the boxscore, and found to my shock that we lost, 61-58.  Santa Clara was pulverized 100-55 by Washington and 81-46 by U.SC.  We beat them 82-43 last year.

Someone who was there, please, please, tell us what happened.  Saturday we did so well against an excellent team, and today we seem to have disintegrated against a really inferior team.

I see we had 26 turnovers to their 13.  Lili had 6 turnovers, Britt, Marta, and Bri had 4 each.  That sounds like the difference.

I also see we shot only 59% of our free throws, compared to over 80% just on Saturday.  That was a big difference, it seems.

Santa Clara was only 1/16 from three, while we were 10/32.  It sounds like they played a tight zone and dared us to shoot treys, and perhaps we lost the ball often trying to pass it inside?

It looks like Lili took twice as many shots as anyone else, and did reasonably well, but she was our only consistent offense?

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - fullmetal - 11-23-2015

According to Twitter, SC had a stifling defense and tremendous energy from their bench.  Also, Stanford couldn't get the ball inside and also couldn't get the 3-ball to drop...so yeah :(

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - CompSci87 - 11-23-2015

It was horrible to watch. We had no clue what to do about their aggressive zone. If we penetrated, they closed in and knocked the ball away, seldom fouling in the process. On more aggressive drives we'd be called for a charge. Getting an open 3 wasn't too hard, but too often it was McPhee throwing up a brick. Alanna's one shot was a badly airballed three. Our rebounders got muscled out or had the ball snatched away.

Severe shot clock malfunctions added to the pleasure of the evening. On one sequence we inbounded with three seconds left, Bird caught the ball and shot immediately, but the buzzer went off before she released it. After long consultation the refs agreed that was wrong and gave us another try with 2 seconds on the clock this time (Why only 2? Who knows.) Exactly the same thing happened again. This time after more consultation and swapping out some equipment, they let us try again with 30 seconds on the clock. Again no idea why. This time Lili caught the inbound and immediately sank a 3. Then there was another long stoppage, halfway through which the refs signaled to count the basket and it was added to the score. Eventually play resumed.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - TheFarm07 - 11-23-2015

We had ill-advised passes trying to crack the zone and then also gave up a lot of balls in traffic.  From 3-point range, we couldn't get enough to fall down for them to switch.

Erica was effectively stymied, we couldn't get the ball into her as often as we would probably liked and a couple of her made field goals were in transition, so the stats looked better for her than they should.

We did tie the game late on a 4-point play by Bri (she was fouled as she made her 3-pointer), but we coughed up the ball on our next possession and they were able to convert on a couple of layups and hold us off for the rest of the game.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - Jskass - 11-23-2015

Disappointed I made the drive there tonight. Exact opposite of GW game except the first quarter was weak with little scoring too tonight. Problem: that continued the whole game. We were down 41-33 at the end of three quarters. No energy or leadership whatsoever until too late. Clearly overconfident or didn't refocus after GW game. You don't see Geno's teams do this.

Of note:
Karlie was trying but made some fouls and then an AWFUL one was called on her, making it 4 and putting her action until the last few minutes of the game.
Yes, they shut McCall down but also our passing to her was always a step late or not at all -- several times she was wide open but they missed her.
Yes, airballs and bricks and unnatural shots (McPhee, Smith, even McCall) but I think some of this was being out of sync and lack of leadership.
I personally think it felt like they had jet lag or were trying to run underwater; I believe they will recover and hopefully play more inspired, learning their lesson.

However, I am concerned that Kaylee Johnson is scared to shoot and automatically passes instead of taking it to the basket, and we need offense from her to avoid everyone focusing inside on Erica McCall. One of the most painful turnovers tonight was a pass of panic from Johnson rather than shooting. My husband (who has coached basketball) feels strongly she needs to use a hook shot more often if she doesn't like the contact. She looks like she could use a sports psychologist-- too much ability to waste.


Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - 76lsjumb - 11-23-2015

If this had been the men's team, several Board regulars would, without hesitation, have been calling for the immediate termination of the coach.  Indeed, the men will be hard pressed to turn in an overall worse performance at home this season than the game this evening.

It could have been even worse, except that a propitiously timed shot clock problem in the second quarter delayed the proceedings for several minutes just after S.C had taken an early 6 point lead, and the interruption seemed to take away S.C's momentum [for awhile, at least].

Also, due to this being a Nike N7 Native American Heritage Celebration game [or something like that], we were sporting turquoise uniforms with red stripes.  Turquoise is great for jewelry...but made for really ugly uniforms.  Also rather disorienting, as the S.C uniforms looked a lot more like Stanford [away] uniforms.  Finally, it seemed a little...ironic, I guess... that our warm-up shirts sported the image of a Native American in a full headdress, and the half-time entertainment was a Native American dance troupe.  Seems to me there used to be a school in the Bay Area that had uniforms with a Native American headdress and who had a Native American performing a dance at halftime.  They had to get rid of all that though.  I just can't remember that school's name...

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - Jskass - 11-23-2015

good point 76lsjumb. seemed like nothing Tara tried worked. Though at one point Bri was just fouling right and left (and Sniezek playing like a freshman), so I was wondering why no Kiran Lakhian.

Team just looked like they didn't care. Even at this point in the season they need to play every game as though it's their last. Seriously need sports shrink.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - 81alum - 11-24-2015

Well, we have to know now that every team will copy the Santa Clara zone until we prove we can solve it. 

Shooting 31% from three is not a complete disaster--we have had worse three point shooting nights the last few years and won despite the poor shooting.  But just shooting a tiny bit better from three would have won the game against that zone.  Lili was outstanding at 5/11. Bri did better from three at 3/7.  Karlie was slightly off at 2/8, but yes McPhee's at 1/7 seems costly.  I keep waiting for her to heat up from three.  McPhee did in fact shoot the three very well in high school, and that is one of the few skills that seems to transfer well to college.  She also shoots well in practice--so I think Tara expects her to start making them in game. 

So, no one has really commented on what happened to our defense.  I guess giving up 61 points is not horrible, but how did Santa Clara score that many with virtually no treys?  Where did our defense break down?

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - Mick - 11-24-2015

(11-23-2015, 11:39 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:If this had been the men's team, several Board regulars would, without hesitation, have been calling for the immediate termination of the coach.


I've seen the 0-3 SCU men's team play.  Trust me.  Stanford would look like a Final Four team next to SCU.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - Jskass - 11-24-2015

Maybe others have keener observations than I on defense, but I noticed that

1. sometimes we worked really hard then bailed them out with a foul near the end of the shot clock
2. there were several times when they hit floaters just out of reach of a potential block
3. they got a lot of rebounds and then hit those second shots
4. lots of foul shots late

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - M T - 11-24-2015

No doubt about it, this was a bad game for our ladies. 

BUT I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE with Jskass's statement "Team just looked like they didn't care."  I also disagree with her statement that  "Clearly overconfident or didn't refocus after GW game."  I just didn't see that in anyone's actions on the court.  They got beat, but not because they weren't trying. 

As for "You don't see Geno's teams do this," I guess you weren't at Maples just 53 weeks ago.

I agree that it appears that our coaching staff had not gotten them prepared for a zone.  The problems were across the board for everyone on the team.

Whether it was a good defense, or bad offense, we couldn't pass the ball inside.  SCU rotated well enough to guard our 3-point shooters unless there was a skip pass, or rather, a skip interception.

Is 26 turnovers a record for Stanford?  Virtually everyone participated:
Lili: 6 in 35 min
Marta: 4 in 9 min
Britanny: 4 in 25 min
Briana: 4 in 25 min
Alana: 3 in 16 min
Kaylee: 2 in 25 min
Erica: 2 in 39 min
Karlie: 1 in 21 min
Just to complete the lineup:
Tess: 0 in 1 min (I thought I remember Tess fumbling the ball, but apparently not.)
Shannon: 0 in 5 min

Our short guards are not tall enough to pass over decent guards.  Skip passes were repeatedly intercepted.
Our interior players couldn't get enough separation for a pass to come in.  They weren't tall enough to get a pass over the top.  They weren't tall enough or strong enough to out-rebound SCU under either goal.

I remember that at 16 minutes into the game, we had 13 points and 12 turnovers.  Ouch.
IIRC, at one point, SCU had more offensive rebounds than we had defensive rebounds.  Ouch. (In each of the 2nd & 3rd quarters, SCU had 5 OR & 5 DR, while Stanford had 2 OR & 4 DR) (EDIT: SCU box score had incorrect values in Totals line.  Correct totals:  2nd: SCU: 4 OR, 5 DR; Stanford: 3 OR, 5 DR; 3rd: SCU: 6 OR, 11 DR; Stanford: 3 OR, 5 DR)

When the team came out for warm-ups before the 2nd half, it seemed clear that the coach's message was to shoot over the zone.  McPhee was hitting probably 70% of her warm-up 3s.  I know she hit 6 in a row.  (It would be nice for McCall to help McPhee on shooting.  I had a really good view of McCall put up a 10 foot jumper.  She got the ball in a shooting position quickly, and then she smoothly took her shot.  I was surprised at how relaxed that part of the shooting motion was, compared to getting in position.  I think McPhee just has too much adrenalin and jerks her shots in the game.)

Unfortunately, we were 1/8 for 3pts in the 3rd quarter, resulting in a 20% 3pt percentage.  In the 4th quarter, we bet the bank on the 3 point shot and almost came back with 6 of 12 from 3pt range.


(By the way, in the 4th quarter, the scoreboard lost one of the fouls on Stanford.  The scoreboard showed just 4 fouls on Stanford after Lili's foul with 0:32 left in the game.  There were actually 5 fouls, so the awarded free throws were proper.)

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - TheFarm07 - 11-24-2015

Our defense was okay, but when you let the opposition shoot the ball 19 more times than you do, because of 20+ offensive rebounds and 26 turnovers, you still are going to give up a few more points.  The margin would have been a lot worse if we were playing a decent shooting team.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - TheFarm07 - 11-24-2015

Also, just listening to the audio clip from the postgame press conference, Tara seemed to emphasize rebounding and boxing out and also to get Erica more involved in the halfcourt offense.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - 81alum - 11-24-2015

I can't find the press conference anywhere, and the main news feeds are only reporting on the boxscore and not a presser.  But Rick Eymer has quotes from Tara.

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/11/23/cardinal-women-suffer-rare-home-basketball-loss-to-broncos

Quote:They played a gritty game. They outplayed us," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said. "We turned the ball over and they got on the O-boards. The whole team is disappointed. We'll go back to the drawing board and look at things."

Quote:"Erica played with tremendous heart," VanDerveer said. "She hardly came out of the game. We need to establish her more in the half-court."

Quote:"That's focus," VanDerveer said. "We'll have to evaluate who can help us on the glass. We'll see whose going to learn from this. We have to be a better rebounding team."

Quote:[T]he Broncos played an aggressive zone defense that prevented the Cardinal from getting the ball into the post players.  "They were very effective in the 2-3 zone," Thompson said. "There are things we can do against it and we'll learn from it."

It sounds as if Tara thought Erica was putting out the effort.  She also seems to be more concerned about rebounds than turnovers.  (Earlier this year she noted that we had to expect more turnovers if we became a faster-paced team, and she was trying to learn from Kerr to shrug them off.  Well, it does not sound like the turnovers last night were those kind of shrug-able turnovers.  And who knows if Eymer just quoted her on the rebounds but not what she may have said about turnovers.)  But she is not happy with rebounding and is talking about making changes.  Given that Kaylee had only 2 rebounds, I wonder if she is thinking of making a change at post.  Alanna had 6 rebounds in her 16 short minutes.  And I see that Kailee did not play again last night.  What is up with her?

So here is the mystery question:  Kaylee last year came in and instantly gave us rebounding as good as Chiney--on pace to break all the Stanford rebounding records.  Her offense was still primitive.  This year, we have not seen improvement on offense yet--although there have been a couple of tantalizing clues that she has been working on it.  But what happened to her rebounding last night?

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - 81alum - 11-24-2015

(11-24-2015, 07:16 AM)TheFarm07 link Wrote:Also, just listening to the audio clip from the postgame press conference, Tara seemed to emphasize rebounding and boxing out and also to get Erica more involved in the halfcourt offense.
Could you link to that presser?

Edit:

https://soundcloud.com/gostanford/sets/wbb-stanford-vs-santa-clara-11?DB_OEM_ID=30600

OK, I listened to the audio.  Tara gives a lot of credit to Santa Clara.  She does talk about reducing turnovers, but she harps on rebounding.  She also said the team has to do a lot better job boxing out, and noted that some of those players were players who played last year.  As far as effort, she did not seem to say a lot about it but noted that before the game she told the team that they have to do more "than just show up," which was perhaps a slight rebuke--but her tone was measured and not angry.  Knowing Tara, she actually is seldom upset by very early season losses.  She cares a lot more about conference losses and of course tournament losses.  That is because early losses usually lead to major improvements, while late losses do not.  So there is that.



Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - Jskass - 11-24-2015

(11-24-2015, 02:53 AM)MT link Wrote:No doubt about it, this was a bad game for our ladies. 

BUT I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE with Jskass's statement "Team just looked like they didn't care."  I also disagree with her statement that  "Clearly overconfident or didn't refocus after GW game."  I just didn't see that in anyone's actions on the court.  They got beat, but not because they weren't trying. 

As for "You don't see Geno's teams do this," I guess you weren't at Maples just 53 weeks ago.

I agree that it appears that our coaching staff had not gotten them prepared for a zone.  The problems were across the board for everyone on the team.

Whether it was a good defense, or bad offense, we couldn't pass the ball inside.  SCU rotated well enough to guard our 3-point shooters unless there was a skip pass, or rather, a skip interception.

Is 26 turnovers a record for Stanford?  Virtually everyone participated:
Lili: 6 in 35 min
Marta: 4 in 9 min
Britanny: 4 in 25 min
Briana: 4 in 25 min
Alana: 3 in 16 min
Kaylee: 2 in 25 min
Erica: 2 in 39 min
Karlie: 1 in 21 min
Just to complete the lineup:
Tess: 0 in 1 min (I thought I remember Tess fumbling the ball, but apparently not.)
Shannon: 0 in 5 min

Our short guards are not tall enough to pass over decent guards.  Skip passes were repeatedly intercepted.
Our interior players couldn't get enough separation for a pass to come in.  They weren't tall enough to get a pass over the top.  They weren't tall enough or strong enough to out-rebound SCU under either goal.

I remember that at 16 minutes into the game, we had 13 points and 12 turnovers.  Ouch.
IIRC, at one point, SCU had more offensive rebounds than we had defensive rebounds.  Ouch. (In each of the 2nd & 3rd quarters, SCU had 5 OR & 5 DR, while Stanford had 2 OR & 4 DR)

When the team came out for warm-ups before the 2nd half, it seemed clear that the coach's message was to shoot over the zone.  McPhee was hitting probably 70% of her warm-up 3s.  I know she hit 6 in a row.  (It would be nice for McCall to help McPhee on shooting.  I had a really good view of McCall put up a 10 foot jumper.  She got the ball in a shooting position quickly, and then she smoothly took her shot.  I was surprised at how relaxed that part of the shooting motion was, compared to getting in position.  I think McPhee just has too much adrenalin and jerks her shots in the game.)

Unfortunately, we were 1/8 for 3pts in the 3rd quarter, resulting in a 20% 3pt percentage.  In the 4th quarter, we bet the bank on the 3 point shot and almost came back with 6 of 12 from 3pt range.


(By the way, in the 4th quarter, the scoreboard lost one of the fouls on Stanford.  The scoreboard showed just 4 fouls on Stanford after Lili's foul with 0:32 left in the game.  There were actually 5 fouls, so the awarded free throws were proper.)

I agree with most of your comments but if you disagree with me on team being flat (except last few minutes) then re-read Tara's comments on doing more than just showing up...plus rebounding being about focus. All I know is what I perceived sitting in the stands; your stats all make a lot of sense, especially to me as a statistician, but perception on effort, energy and focus matters too -- and I can't imagine you didn't feel it last night.

And, yes Geno's team let up ONCE in the past how many years? No comparison. They never slow down in any game to have close games but instead consistently beat teams by 40+ points. When did we last do that? We need to have that mental toughness. If KLS thought we were comparable, she wouldn't have chosen to fly 3000 miles to attend a weaker academic institution than Stanford. I'm just saying it as it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - chimera - 11-24-2015

I agree that early losses can be a heat learning tool but this one was just such a stinker, and at home yet.  If this were a road loss, it would be bad, at home it is horrifically bad.  Just cannot defend home court like that, no matter the reasons.  I was optimistic about the season after the GW game, now, I just don't know what to think.  Wasn't just the loss, it was how bad it was from so many players.  We should do better against zones than chuck up threes and hope for the best or try to drive or pass into traffic.  Everything was a beat late.  When we did get their zone out of shape we did not pass it quickly enough to take advantage.  With the blue uniforms it felt like the twilight zone.  Who stole our team?  I don't get why we struggle with zones almost every year.  This loss is a stinker that will be a weight on the team all year as far as RPI and all that.  And if I have to sit there and watch us do similar stuff against the zones that will surely come our way after teams see this, I don't know that I can take it.

Re: wBB: Santa Clara Game Thread - TheFarm07 - 11-24-2015

(11-24-2015, 08:12 AM)Jskass link Wrote:I agree with most of your comments but if you disagree with me on team being flat (except last few minutes) then re-read Tara's comments on doing more than just showing up...plus rebounding being about focus. All I know is what I perceived sitting in the stands; your stats all make a lot of sense, especially to me as a statistician, but perception on effort, energy and focus matters too -- and I can't imagine you didn't feel it last night.

And, yes Geno's team let up ONCE in the past how many years? No comparison. They never slow down in any game to have close games but instead consistently beat teams by 40+ points. When did we last do that? We need to have that mental toughness. If KLS thought we were comparable, she wouldn't have chosen to fly 3000 miles to attend a weaker academic institution than Stanford. I'm just saying it as it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

Agreed, particularly telling are his comments from last year's NCAA tourney, where he noted that most teams are happy to survive and advance, no matter the scoreline.  For UConn, their goal is not just win, but dominate and send a message to the rest of the field.

Also, earlier this season, I think one of the UConn players, it might have been Moriah Jefferson, commenting that they do not pay attention to the score when they're playing and whether they are up by 5 or by 25, they still compete with the same level of intensity.

I think it's what one of the reasons that sets UConn apart from its peers.  Yea, sure, UConn gets the elite recruits, but like any other team, they can only put 5 players on the court at any one time.  Geno instills in them a sense of pride and ruthlessness in execution and results.  I can only imagine what Geno would say in the locker room after a loss to a subpar team like last night's.