WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 - 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 57 U.SC 47 (/thread-11447.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 57 U.SC 47 (/thread-11447.html)
Pages:
1
2
WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 - 81alum - 01-22-2016
Overview
The offense sputtered along with some bright spots, the defense had 13 blocks and held SC to 31% shooting, and that was enough to offset our 19 turnovers.
Pregame:
In a vital road-trip following a poor offensive showing against both Oregon and Oregon State, we take on U.SC tonight and #20 UCLA Sunday on Sunday--on the road. This road trip will go a long way toward deciding the fate of our season, and could realistically be anything from 2-0 to 0-2.  U.SC is led by graduate transfer Tami Fagbenle, a 6-4 power forward who played for Harvard last year and was All-Ivy first or second team during her years there, and a 2011 McDonald's All-American. She instantly elevated U.SC when she joined them this year. (Makes me wonder why she was not at Stanford, given that she was a McD and academically qualified for Harvard. That was the year we had the "sixpack" of Bonnie, Taylor, Amber, Jasmine Camp, Alex Green, and Erica Payne.)  U.SC also has Jordan Adams, a 48% three point shooter, although Jaco Courtney comes off the bench to take many more trey attempts at 38%. U.SC generally spreads its scoring pretty evenly around multiple players, making it hard to take away a single star or two, and necessitating the ability to shift the defensive focus depending on who on their team gets hot. It is exactly the kind of team that gives us trouble to defend. SC is 64th in offense and 41st in defense, 11th in turnover margin and 24th in steals, and its pg Brianna Barett is 11th in the nation in assist/turnover ratio. They are ranked 23 by Sagarin.
Flow of the Game:
Stanford opened the first quarter by doubling Fagbenle whenever she touched the ball. This left a few openings for SC. On offense, Tara clearly issued orders to increase the pace of the game and to run a depleted SC into the ground. In the first half, Marta set a very fast pace, pushed the ball with lots of hard passes--many of them hard to control and as a result we have 12 turnovers to 4 for SC. Those turnovers have kept SC in the game, because we are shooting 50% and they are shooting 32%.  Most importantly, Lili is 4/6 and seems to be more confident. Bri will not play tonight, we were told, and neither will Adams or Barrett for SC who have academic issues. We outrebounded SC 21-12 which helps make up for those turnovers. So too did our 7 blocks to their 1. So far Tara has played 8 players and all 8 have scored. Everything looks good except the turnovers and that score. Somehow all that dominance adds up to only a 4 point lead.
The second half showed some of the wisdom of the fast pace--Fagbenle was obviously fatigued and shorting her free throws. This time our defense did not collapse as it did at Oregon State--until the last thirty seconds of the game when we gave up six quick points off turnovers when inbounding. Fagbenle was held to 3/10, and we were helped by SC going 6/17 from the line. We led the entire second half and it gradually stretched the lead from 4 to 9 to 15 late in the fourth quarter before giving up those embarrassing but meaningless three baskets at the end.
I think the announcers said that our 13 blocks was a school record. It was obvious that anytime SC tried to score in the paint that they got swarmed with long arms. We did this to Oregon and Oregon State, too, but both those teams figured out how to pass the pass out of the paint to open three point shooters to punish us. SC did not.
Performances:
Karlie was 4/6 from three point range and looking like her true self.Â
But the game ball would have to go to Erica McCall, who quietly put up a double-double while recording 5 blocks. She was so important to all phases of the game--14 points, 11 rebounds, 5 blocks--even a couple of steals.
Lili looked much more like the good Lili tonight. I even saw her smile. Still not a 3 pointer made, but 5/11 for 11 points, and dynamic.
With Bri unable to play, Marta got a lot of time--35 minutes. She looked brilliant at times, and racked up 4 of our relatively paltry 11 assists. She took it to the rim a couple of times, and almost shot a jump shot....but didn't :P One of these days, she is going to at least attempt a jump shot. But she really increased the pace of the game and the faster pace seemed to help Lili especially get into a more comfortable rhythm. Unfortunately, her passes tended to be high risk and either worked well or created turnovers--she had 5 to go with Lili's 4.Â
Kaylee split time with the other bigs, but aggressively went after rebounds and wound up with 13, to go with 5 points. 13 rebounds in 20 minutes of play--she had 4 fouls or may have played more. That is impressive.
Alanna and Brittany got some time--I was shocked to see a lineup that had Karlie, Brittany, and Alanna all in the game at the same time--and made modest contributions. McPhee had a nice trey, and Smith was 2/7, making the lay-ins and missing the treys.
Conclusion:
This game had some ugly moments, and it won't answer all the questions that have been growing about the team. It does, however, show us a forumula: Tara is pushing the pace even in it means more turnovers, and to do this she is playing more players. She experimented today with combinations just like the lineups we have talked about on this board. She is hunting for answers. The defense, especially the blocking of Erica and Kaylee, was dominant, and the offense was just good enough given the strong defense. Sunday will be a stronger test. A win at UCLA would be our best conference win so far--but unlike SC they are relatively healthy and are playing well.
Watching this game, though, the players looked happier, as if they were having fun. They played with much more energy than last weekend, smiled, pushed the pace. Even their mistakes looked more energetic! Tara is trying to inject some new life into the team, and it showed.
Re: WBB: Stanford vs. U.SC 8pm pacific - CompSci87 - 01-22-2016
I remember mention of Fagbenle as a potential recruit before she chose Ivy. Don't know any more.
Re: WBB: Stanford vs. U.SC 8pm pacific - IM in OC - 01-22-2016
Both Jordan Adams and Brianna Barratt are on the Academically Ineligble list. They both missed last weekend games vs UW& WSU.
From the USC media release it doesn't appear they are playing this weekend.
both are grad students .
Re: WBB: Stanford vs. U.SC 8pm pacific - fullmetal - 01-22-2016
Whoa...! That's unfortunate for $C.
Re: WBB: Stanford vs. U.SC 8pm pacific - 81alum - 01-22-2016
(01-22-2016, 12:06 PM)IM in OC link Wrote:Both Jordan Adams and Brianna Barratt are on the Academically Ineligble list. They both missed last weekend games vs UW& WSU.My. SC certainly brought in a lot of grad students. But it seems a couple of them were not quite as academically inclined as their Harvard all-star.Â
From the Unbelievably Spoiled Children media release it doesn't appear they are playing this weekend.
both are grad students .
Re: WBB: Stanford vs. U.SC 8pm pacific - CompSci87 - 01-22-2016
Adams and Barrett were USC undergraduates too. Only Fagbenle was brought in as a grad student.
Re: WBB: Stanford vs. U.SC 8pm pacific - 81alum - 01-22-2016
Did anyone notice that the 1st quarter ended with the Cardboard's consensus lineup:
McCall, Kaylee, McPhee, Karlie, Lili.
Doing better on offense than last game, certainly, with 18 points in the quarter.
Re: WBB: Stanford 28 U.SC 24 at the half - TheFarm07 - 01-22-2016
Can't watch the game, but it seemed we regressed again in the 2nd quarter and scored just 10 points.
Plus we have 12 turnovers in the first half.
Re: WBB: Stanford 28 U.SC 24 at the half - JJJ - 01-22-2016
Started off looking so promising, then the second quarter happened. Sloppy cross-court passes, stepping on the baseline, not being aware of the shot-clock and making too many passes--these seem like they could be corrected. On a positive note, we scored 18 in the first quarter, which isn't bad given recent trends.
Re: WBB: Stanford 28 U.SC 24 at the half - 81alum - 01-22-2016
(01-22-2016, 09:49 PM)TheFarm07 link Wrote:Can't watch the game, but it seemed we regressed again in the 2nd quarter and scored just 10 points.
Plus we have 12 turnovers in the first half.
I think the turnovers are the side-effect of a deliberate strategy to massively speed up the game and the passing. With SC down to so few players, we are trying to wear them down. A lot of those turnovers were unforced--bullet passes that we couldn't handle, etc.
Re: WBB: Stanford 28 U.SC 24 at the half - BobK - 01-22-2016
Bri out don't know her status. Coffee sick back at hotel per Twitter
Cal Gabby Green out and maybe for awhile. Cal lost to ucla by 20
Weise back for Oregon State
Re: WBB: Stanford 28 U.SC 24 at the half - Rally - 01-22-2016
(01-22-2016, 10:01 PM)BobK link Wrote:Bri out don't know her status. Coffee sick back at hotel per Twitter
Low APR U Gabby Green out and maybe for awhile. Low APR U lost to ucla by 20
Weise back for Oregon State
Coffee sick?
Re: WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 at the half - TheFarm07 - 01-22-2016
Please tell me how our uptempo offense only led to 57 points? I think we need booster rockets to get to 60 points these days
Re: WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 at the half - 81alum - 01-22-2016
(01-22-2016, 11:01 PM)TheFarm07 link Wrote:Please tell me how our uptempo offense only led to 57 points? I think we need booster rockets to get to 60 points these daysThe uptempo offense referred to faster and longer passes. Unfortunately, a number of them sailed out of bounds. Tara has commented on how Kerr doesn't worry about turnovers. This is a hard lesson for her. She instinctively wants to slow the game down and take care of the ball. But I do think a slow-paced game may destroy the offensive rhythm of the players.Â
Re: WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 - bl82 - 01-22-2016
19 TOs did us in. We actually shot quite well at 46%, 46% from three and 67% from the FT line, but those 19 TOs meant we had only 50 FG tries.
Re: WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 at the half - TheFarm07 - 01-22-2016
(01-22-2016, 11:11 PM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=TheFarm07 link=topic=14458.msg154043#msg154043 date=1453528860]The uptempo offense referred to faster and longer passes. Unfortunately, a number of them sailed out of bounds. Tara has commented on how Kerr doesn't worry about turnovers. This is a hard lesson for her. She instinctively wants to slow the game down and take care of the ball. But I do think a slow-paced game may destroy the offensive rhythm of the players.
Please tell me how our uptempo offense only led to 57 points? I think we need booster rockets to get to 60 points these days
[/quote]
I am not much of a basketball strategist, but it seems like just attempting longer and faster passes are not an end to itself. You mentioned exhausting the US.C team using this tactic, given we had a deeper bench. But within an offensive scheme, isn't the different nature of the passes designed to try to exploit possible openings/mismatches so that we can get into a better position to shoot the ball more often or push tempo down the court before the defense sets up, hence enabling us to attempt more shots and thus, hopefully put more points on the board?
Because in my head (and again I'm not a basketball mastermind), by making longer and faster passes without changing anything else, aren't you adding more risk without any added reward?
Re: WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 at the half - 81alum - 01-23-2016
(01-22-2016, 11:29 PM)TheFarm07 link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=14458.msg154044#msg154044 date=1453529490]The uptempo offense referred to faster and longer passes. Unfortunately, a number of them sailed out of bounds. Tara has commented on how Kerr doesn't worry about turnovers. This is a hard lesson for her. She instinctively wants to slow the game down and take care of the ball. But I do think a slow-paced game may destroy the offensive rhythm of the players.
[quote author=TheFarm07 link=topic=14458.msg154043#msg154043 date=1453528860]
Please tell me how our uptempo offense only led to 57 points? I think we need booster rockets to get to 60 points these days
[/quote]
I am not much of a basketball strategist, but it seems like just attempting longer and faster passes are not an end to itself. You mentioned exhausting the US.C team using this tactic, given we had a deeper bench. But within an offensive scheme, isn't the different nature of the passes designed to try to exploit possible openings/mismatches so that we can get into a better position to shoot the ball more often or push tempo down the court before the defense sets up, hence enabling us to attempt more shots and thus, hopefully put more points on the board?
Because in my head (and again I'm not a basketball mastermind), by making longer and faster passes without changing anything else, aren't you adding more risk without any added reward?
[/quote]
Many were passes up court to force SC to run. We had players breaking early even before the rebound was secure to be ready to receive a long pass, and thus SC had to run back on defense early to avoid our fast break. Marta was bringing the ball up the court with her head up always looking for a pass to accelerate the break. Once we settled into the halfcourt I think passing and pace were more energetic too, but not all that different from prior games. The difference is that Marta deliberately "pushed" the pace to maintain a credible threat of a fast break whenever possible. This made SC run.
Another thing to keep in mind--SC specializes in creating turnovers and that is one of its best statistics this season. They had 11 steals. That leaves 8 unforced errors, more or less, and most of those were on passes that didn't quite work.
Another observation. Turnovers by quarter: 6 6 2 5. Three of the turnovers in the 4th quarter came in that silly stretch in the last 30 seconds. So, in general, we dramatically cut back on turnovers for all the minutes that mattered in the second half.
Re: WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 at the half - 2006alum - 01-23-2016
(01-23-2016, 12:35 AM)81alum link Wrote:Many were passes up court to force SC to run. We had players breaking early even before the rebound was secure to be ready to receive a long pass, and thus SC had to run back on defense early to avoid our fast break. Marta was bringing the ball up the court with her head up always looking for a pass to accelerate the break. Once we settled into the halfcourt I think passing and pace were more energetic too, but not all that different from prior games. The difference is that Marta deliberately "pushed" the pace to maintain a credible threat of a fast break whenever possible. This made SC run.
Another thing to keep in mind--SC specializes in creating turnovers and that is one of its best statistics this season. They had 11 steals. That leaves 8 unforced errors, more or less, and most of those were on passes that didn't quite work.
Another observation. Turnovers by quarter: 6 6 2 5. Three of the turnovers in the 4th quarter came in that silly stretch in the last 30 seconds. So, in general, we dramatically cut back on turnovers for all the minutes that mattered in the second half.
Although this was a turnover-heavy game, I like where Tara is going with this. Compared to our more dominant years, the one leg up we have now is that we are considerably more athletic. While Appel, Pederson and Pohlen were all top players, none was especially athletic, and we were noticeably bad at up-tempo games with close guarding and presses. In contrast, when our bench is deep and we have no particular standout player we MUST get the ball to, playing fast and risking turnovers for exhausting the opposing team seems like a great strategy, especially teams with one or two standout players like Fagbenle, who was effectively neutralized in the game.
With such a rotating cast, out of curiosity I ran the +/- differential for each of our players for the game. Heres's what it looks like:
Lili: +9
Erica: +7
Karlie: +10
Marta: +13
Kailee: +1
Kaylee: +10
Brittany: -2
Alanna: +2
As a reminder, this number shows how much we went up (or down) relative to the other team in the time that player was on the floor during the whole game. It doesn't relate at all to that player's individual scoring other than how her scoring contributes to the overall differential while she's on the floor. This is a common metric in NBA games but for some reason (resources probably?) isn't calculated for college ball. It's especially helpful in helping to determine how much a player subtly contributes to assists and/or is a liability on defense.
At a quick glance, these numbers are not what I would have guessed. Somehow despite being two of our least potent offensive weapons, when Marta and Kaylee are on the court, we spread our leads the farthest (Kaylee, recently, has been much stronger on the offensive end). Karlie is more predictable. I was somewhat surprised Erica didn't have a stronger differential. And interestingly, at least in this game, the presence of Brittany and Alanna didn't contribute much. Obviously this is an imperfect measure in any given game - I may try to do this for several of our next games to get a sense of things over time. Now that I've made the excel spreadsheet to auto-calculate things, it's not too much hassle.
Re: WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 at the half - 81alum - 01-23-2016
(01-23-2016, 06:13 AM)2006alum link Wrote:Although this was a turnover-heavy game, I like where Tara is going with this. Compared to our more dominant years, the one leg up we have now is that we are considerably more athletic. While Appel, Pederson and Pohlen were all top players, none was especially athletic, and we were noticeably bad at up-tempo games with close guarding and presses. In contrast, when our bench is deep and we have no particular standout player we MUST get the ball to, playing fast and risking turnovers for exhausting the opposing team seems like a great strategy, especially teams with one or two standout players like Fagbenle, who was effectively neutralized in the game.Thanks 2006! MT I think used to do this sort of analysis--ran into the problem that the play-by-play is not always accurate about substitutions and hence time played. For example, in looking at the boxscore on GoStanford, the final substitution of Alex, Tess, and Alexa with a minute left is not recorded. Not sure if there is a better boxscore somewhere.... But I find this fascinating. Given the hints Kate has given about the use of stats in the coaching decisions, I imagine that the coaches are very well aware of this and similar stats, over time.Â
With such a rotating cast, out of curiosity I ran the +/- differential for each of our players for the game. Heres's what it looks like:
Lili: +9
Erica: +7
Karlie: +10
Marta: +13
Kailee: +1
Kaylee: +10
Brittany: -2
Alanna: +2
As a reminder, this number shows how much we went up (or down) relative to the other time in the time that player was on the floor during the game. It doesn't relate at all to that player's individual scoring other than how it contributes to the overall differential. This is a common metric in NBA games but for some reason (resources probably?) isn't calculated for college ball.
This is not what I would have guessed, superficially. Somehow despite being two of our least potent offensive weapons, when Marta and Kaylee are on the court, we spread our leads the farthest. Karlie is more predictable. Interestingly, at least in this game, the presence of Brittany and Alanna didn't contribute much. Obviously this is an imperfect measure in any given game - I may try to do this for several of our next games to get a sense of things over time. Now that I've made the excel spreadsheet to auto-calculate things, it's not too much hassle.
When I do my first write-ups it is before the full boxscores become available--prior to the minutes played being posted. In looking those minutes-played over today, I noticed that even though Tara played 8 players for much of the game, four players got 30+ minutes (McCall, Thompson, Sniezek, and Samuelson) and the final slot was split between Kaylee and Kailee, with Britt and Alanna playing small roles in relief. The time was not spread out as much as, for example, ASU does between its players. In last night's ASU win over Arizona, ASU played 10 players, none more than 30 with most of its starters in the mid 20s. Most of our starters (other than Kailee) were in the mid 30s. So Tara has not really embraced the deep rotation model as much as I expected.
On Sniezek's differential, she played for 35 of the 40 minutes, and she left the game before Tara sent the third string in for the last minute that immediately gave up 3 turnovers and six points. We were leading by about 15 when she left, so I see where that number comes from.
With Bri out for the game, this was a game that Alex Green or Alexa Romano might have gotten some meaningful time, if Tara thought they were ready. The fact that they did not get into the game until the last minute is strong evidence that the coaches think Alexa is not ready yet, and Alex must be having problems reclaiming her old form after such a prolonged injury. She could be 100% healthy, but still missed months of practice and it is beginning to look like she won't make it back to meaningful play time.
However, with Tara limited to just Marta and Lili, during the small number of minutes of meaningful time that Marta or Lili rested, we saw some interesting lineups much like the ones we had been speculating about on these boards, with Karlie playing the 2.
Finally, it doesn't seem like we are doing our "job" on this board without scrutinizing the team and analyzing weaknesses and areas for improvement. But let's stress a few positives. We did win the game for a reason, after all. Or for a few reasons!
1) The blocking was fantastic. In fact, the best I have ever seen--better than when we had Appel and Nneka even. And the sum total of all those blocks were incredibly intimidating for SC to handle. Just superb work. We are turning into a dominant inside-defense team. Our defense on the perimeter may not be as strong, but isn't bad.
2) Ever since Arizona, the shooting of McCall, Lili, and Bri has been unreliable. Bri didn't play last night, but McCall and Lili showed strong signs of coming out of their shooting slumps. They each seemed to have their confidence back.
3) Tara tried some creative lineups and is clearly aware of the offensive issues and experimenting to find ways to solve them. Marta made some mistakes, but is steadily showing signs of growth. The two times she took it in to the basket she showed very fast acceleration and made quite difficult layups to go--around much taller players. They were nice moves.
4) Karlie didn't make a single trey and only made one attempt against Oregon State. She had 6 attempts and they were mostly good looks, and she sank 4. The team was doing a much better job of getting her opportunities, and she was doing a better job of sinking them.
Re: WBB: Stanford 57 U.SC 47 at the half - 2006alum - 01-23-2016
(01-23-2016, 07:11 AM)81alum link Wrote:Thanks 2006! MT I think used to do this sort of analysis--ran into the problem that the play-by-play is not always accurate about substitutions and hence time played. For example, in looking at the boxscore on GoStanford, the final substitution of Alex, Tess, and Alexa with a minute left is not recorded. Not sure if there is a better boxscore somewhere.... But I find this fascinating. Given the hints Kate has given about the use of stats in the coaching decisions, I imagine that the coaches are very well aware of this and similar stats, over time.Â
Not being able to see the game, I find this confusing. According to the play-by-play, the final minute or so of the game included no substitutions and went as follows:
Quote:GOOD! FT SHOT by Lloyd, Alexis         01:24 41-55 V 14
                        01:13       TURNOVR by Thompson, Lili
STEAL by Fagbenle, Temi            01:12
MISSED LAYUP by Effa, Marguerite        01:09       REBOUND (DEF) by Johnson, Kaylee
                        00:57 41-57 V 16 GOOD! LAYUP by McCall, Erica [PNT]
                        00:57       ASSIST by Thompson, Lili
TURNOVR by Fagbenle, Temi           00:39
GOOD! LAYUP by Edwards, Sadie [PNT]Â Â Â Â Â Â 00:27Â 43-57Â V 14
MISSED FT SHOT by Edwards, Sadie        00:27       FOUL by Samuelson, Karlie (P4T10)
                        00:27       REBOUND (DEF) by McPhee, Brittany
                        00:21       TURNOVR by McPhee, Brittany
STEAL by Edwards, Sadie            00:20
GOOD! LAYUP by Edwards, Sadie [PNT]Â Â Â Â Â Â 00:19Â 45-57Â V 12
                        00:15       TURNOVR by Johnson, Kaylee
STEAL by Edwards, Sadie            00:14
GOOD! LAYUP by Edwards, Sadie [PNT]Â Â Â Â Â Â 00:13Â 47-57Â V 10
At a minimum, Karlie and Brittany were in the game until the last 20 seconds, and Kaylee until the last 15. Lili and Erica were also in until at least the 0:57 mark. Who is it we think Alex, Alexa and Tess replaced? They are listed in the box score with 1 minute played each. So unless the play-by-play is just making things up, the earliest all three could have been in was with Brittany and Kaylee after Karlie fouled for the fourth time (which might make sense as a time to make the substitutions). This does give me some pause, however, in relying on the play-by-play to calculate differentials.
(01-23-2016, 07:11 AM)81alum link Wrote:When I do my first write-ups it is before the full boxscores become available--prior to the minutes played being posted. In looking those minutes-played over today, I noticed that even though Tara played 8 players for much of the game, four players got 30+ minutes (McCall, Thompson, Sniezek, and Samuelson) and the final slot was split between Kaylee and Kailee, with Britt and Alanna playing small roles in relief. The time was not spread out as much as, for example, ASU does between its players. In last night's ASU win over Arizona, ASU played 10 players, none more than 30 with most of its starters in the mid 20s. Most of our starters (other than Kailee) were in the mid 30s. So Tara has not really embraced the deep rotation model as much as I expected.
On Sniezek's differential, she played for 35 of the 40 minutes, and she left the game before Tara sent the third string in for the last minute that immediately gave up 3 turnovers and six points. We were leading by about 15 when she left, so I see where that number comes from.
Here's the differential with those sloppy last thirty seconds removed:
Lili: +15
Erica: +13
Karlie: +16
Marta: +19
Kailee: +1
Kaylee: +16
Brittany: -2
Alanna: +2
So Lili and Erica close the gap a bit with the other three, but because the play-by-play never had Marta subbing out, her numbers go up too. I guess the only real takeaway from this game is that if we're trying to decide between Kaylee and Kailee, the differential between the two is vast based on this game. And maybe Brittany and Alanna's offensive abilities are offset by their defensive lapses.
(01-23-2016, 07:11 AM)81alum link Wrote:Finally, it doesn't seem like we are doing our "job" on this board without scrutinizing the team and analyzing weaknesses and areas for improvement. But let's stress a few positives. We did win the game for a reason, after all. Or for a few reasons!
1) The blocking was fantastic. In fact, the best I have ever seen--better than when we had Appel and Nneka even. And the sum total of all those blocks were incredibly intimidating for SC to handle. Just superb work. We are turning into a dominant inside-defense team. Our defense on the perimeter may not be as strong, but isn't bad.
3) Tara tried some creative lineups and is clearly aware of the offensive issues and experimenting to find ways to solve them. Marta made some mistakes, but is steadily showing signs of growth. The two times she took it in to the basket she showed very fast acceleration and made quite difficult layups to go--around much taller players. They were nice moves.
Yes, I'm really encouraged by how strong we are inside the paint defensively, and as Bird and Kayl mature, offensively as well. Given that we were in full-scale panic mode about our bigs at this time last year (when Kayl started to drop off but Bird hadn't made the brobdingnagian steps yet), this is super encouraging, and with Fingall coming in next year, we should have good continuity.
Like you, I'm a fan of trying the fast tempo offense. Given our blocking abilities and the general athleticism/fitness of our players, along with a deeper bench, I'm comfortable risking more turnovers if that means creating some more open offensive opportunities. We really get stuck when a defense gets set in a zone and the ball is stuck outside and we play the pass-around-the-perimeter game until the shot clock necessitates that someone heave a doomed clunker. That has been the hallmark of our offensive woes for the past decade, and so I'm all for finding transition opportunities, especially since all three of our guards are great at fast break opportunities and have been struggling offensively. Of course, this is also a less risky strategy against less-good teams or teams without exceptional defensive guards on the other side. It might not work as well against UCLA or Oregon State, for example, as it did against USC.