The CardBoard
UCLA 69-Stanford 65 - 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: UCLA 69-Stanford 65 (/thread-1248.html)


UCLA 69-Stanford 65 - washingtonismoney - 02-18-2011

Probably more flattering to Stanford than the balance of play, which left Stanford\'s offense often punchless.

So why did Stanford lose?

1. UCLA\'s jump shooting was hot in the first half. Of their first-half 36 points, only six were scored in the paint; their overall shooting percentage was 50, if I recall correctly. You can infer an atypically hot jump-shooting field goal percentage from that. Indeed, I thought Stanford\'s defense was pretty good in the first half. (UCLA finished the game with 52% shooting from beyond the arc.)

2. Not so with the second half. Part of this was that Ben Howland took notice of the obvious facts that: a) he has an agile 300-pounder in Josh Smith and b) Stanford\'s big men, while fairly good, are lightweight. So he pounded the ball inside and was rewarded with fouls, points, and offensive rebounds. Unfortunately Stanford was not able to make the counter-move play: i.e. either stretching the floor with our big men or taking their big men off of the dribble.

3. Unfortunately, Dwight Powell had a tough game finishing. He often did all of the preliminary stuff right, but couldn\'t quite get the finish right. On the other hand, Anthony Brown looked quite good--mostly in the flow of the game, rather than taking over and dominating himself. That was left to the always-erratic Jeremy Green: while he finished with 27 points, his offensive presence definitely waxed and waned. The point guard situation continues to be inadequate: Bright isn\'t athletic enough to be a starter; Mann has regressed since his hot streak, making some very poor decisions, missing free throws, and playing only passable defense. (On the decision-making: there was one point where Mann had Owens open on a tough-but-makeable pass on a fast break--one of those lob deals. Mann declined to take the opportunity. I\'m guessing someone yelled to him about that, because a little while later he tried throwing a lob pass in a halfcourt set that was as poorly executed as it was conceived--turnover and a fastbreak.)

4. There\'s also not much depth to the team. UCLA brought Josh Smith and Tyler Lamb and Jerime Anderson off of the bench; Stanford\'s bench options either didn\'t perform well, or weren\'t suited for the game (John Gage\'s shooting ability is sorely missed when not in the game; on the other hand, he looks so thin I believe Josh Smith would consider eating him as an hors d\'oeuvre.)

Overall I\'d say the game reinforced a lot of what we already know: it\'s a frustrating team to watch when things are going badly, but they do play hard and aren\'t without potential. A run in the Pac-10 tournament--if the shooters are hot and the bracket sets up the right way--is not totally out of the question.

Re: UCLA 69-Stanford 65 - washingtonismoney - 02-18-2011

I\'m not so sure about that. In college you can often survive without one of these big thick bangers--I recall for example the Villanova team that earned a #1 seed the year Florida won its first title. But if you\'re going to play with smaller players, you have to play in a way that accentuates those strengths: either by running or spreading the floor.

To be fair, it\'s a strategic dilemma: you can\'t run a lot unless you trust your point guard/ballhandlers generally. Point guard has been done to death; Green is not really a passer; maybe the best passer in the starting lineup is Anthony Brown. It\'s very fortunate we got Chasson Randle.

(Also: I think Dawkins intended for Stefan Nastic to be his guy down low. But Nastic got injured early in the season, which was too bad: he seemed to combine a nasty disposition with Euro-style skill.)

Re: UCLA 69-Stanford 65 - slide - 02-18-2011

Garvin -- Chasson Randle is likely our new combo PG.  he starts in the fall.

Mann, I agree about his lack of ability to finish.  the double clutch and miss from 1 foot was brutal.  he then missed both FTs, the last was rebounded and ended as a Green 3-pointer.  on the opposite end, he is a much better defender than Bright.

downlow next year, hopefully Nastic is more of an answer for us.  he needs weight but he is longer than anyone we have playing now.

Re: UCLA 69-Stanford 65 - washingtonismoney - 02-18-2011

Nastic is currently listed at 225. Both Lopi were listed at 245 in their final year.