The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 99 UO 60 - 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 99 UO 60 (/thread-1277.html)


WBB: Stanford 99 UO 60 - Viking_Guy - 02-26-2011

Where to start.  Well, the Ducks did discomfort Stanford, taking an early 3-0 lead and forcing Stanford to call a timeout less than 2 minutes into the game with their aggressive pressing on inbounds plays, forcing  turnovers on the Cardinal\'s first two possessions.

I was uncomfortable because Nneka was on the court.  With a big old brace on her right ankle.  She looked fine in warmups, but I was more than a little concerned, given that the game was likely to be a track meet if we could break Oregon\'s press.

It was a track meet.  After that initial intense pressure, Stanford found a way to get down court, and the Ducks, chasing from behind, started to foul.  And foul.  And then foul some more.  The Cardinal kept driving after breaking the pressure, and kept either getting layups or getting to the free throw line.

Oregon, meanwhile, did their "huck, chuck and duck" offense - not much passing, and a lot of individual attempts to score off the dribble.  It worked occasionally, but if it didn\'t, Stanford was heading the other way, often for an easy score.

How easy?  How about 17 points in the first 4 minutes?  Hitting five of their first six shots and 6 FTs to open the game?  The Ducks\' defense could best be described as "porous," except when it was non-existent.

My major concern?  Injury.  Oregon, in trying to catch up to Stanford\'s transition game, was fouling HARD from behind on a lot of layup attempts, and especially when one of the people being fouled is operating on a bad ankle, I cringed a lot.  But it also had the effect of putting Stanford into the bonus a little more than 9 minutes into the game.

The Cardinal defense, meanwhile, got its feet under them a bit more, and realized that if they kept Oregon out of transition, the Ducks really didn\'t have much of a halfcourt offense.  And the lead kept growing.   Quickly.  As in 31-10 10 minutes into the game.  As in 50-19 a few minutes later.  With Sara James into the game in the first half with more than 4 minutes left.  Joining Mel Murphy, who came in a few minutes before that.

Really, it was a kind of boring game.  Oregon had no real chance, and no real plan.  Stanford was experimenting with different lineups, getting a lot of people major playing time, and able to score pretty much at will.

How bad was it?  At halftime, the lead was 56-25.  Oregon had shot 7-38 from the field, under 20%.  They had committed 17 team fouls, and had 3 players already with 3 personals.  About the only thing that kept the score from being totally ridiculous was that Stanford wasn\'t hitting the 3 point shot.  But how about 20-24 from the free throw line IN A HALF!

The second half was really more of the same.  The only suspense was (1) when would Nneka leave, (2) would Stanford hit 100, and (3) how would the subs play.

Nneka played a bit more, but left the floor for good, and still moving well, at the 4 minute media timeout, along with Jeanette.  Kayla and Chiney soon followed.  And Stanford had exactly 1 starter on the floor at any point in the last 15 minutes of the game.  Of course, by then they were up 40 points at 69-29.

The quest for 100 points sort of stalled at that point.  Oregon\'s foul trouble pushed them into a 2-3 zone.  Now, normally that wouldn\'t be a problem.  But with all subs on the floor, there was not a lot of aggression about taking the ball to the basket, except off a press break.  So for the next 7 minutes or so, with Stanford only having Lindy left on the floor of the initial starters, the Cardinal only scored 6 points, and the chance for the century fell by the wayside.

This is not to say there weren\'t great plays.  One in particular, Mel Murphy finishing off a transition opportunity with a left-handed layup while getting undercut from behind was truly remarkable.

About the only really interesting story lines in the second half revolved around fouls.  First, Sara Boothe - who picked up 4 fouls very quickly, and forced Tara to bring Chiney back in with 9 minutes or so left in the game.  The other story line?  Exactly how many Ducks would foul out.  It ended up being only 3, not because there weren\'t more of them in foul trouble, but because Westhead went deep into his bench finally when the third fouled out.

I will say that people were hoping for 100 when Ashley Cimino hit a left corner 3 with about 30 seconds left.  But Oregon pulled back from their frenetic offensive pace, not wanting to give Stanford another opportunity (although I was thinking a late rebounding foul would be nice).

What can you say in the end?  SIX players in double figure scoring.  12 players in double digit minutes played, with none more than 22 minutes (Chiney), and Nneka only 12.  Holding another opponent under 25% shooting for a game.  A lot of quality time for the "second unit", with Kokenis, Tinkle, Boothe, Mel and Ruef on the floor.

This is not to say there weren\'t some issues.

more...




Re: WBB: Stanford 99 UO 60 - Viking_Guy - 02-26-2011

I\'m just really not that sure about the wisdom of playing Nneka.  I know that she was probably lobbying to get into the game, but especially after a couple of bad takedowns of Stanford players in transition from behind by Duck defenders, I wanted her safely on the bench.  Hoping that Thursday\'s game against Kal will offer a slightly safer opportunity to get some quality time on the court.

When the subs came in, there was definitely a lull in the offense.  As I mentioned, Oregon was in a zone, and Stanford, instead of trying to get it inside to Boothe, seemed content to toss the ball around on the perimeter a bit too much, at least at first.  I think Mel must\'ve got a talking to at the 8 minute timeout, because she was firing entry passes into Sara from the wing on the next several possessions.

But it\'s really hard to tell anything from this game.  Westhead\'s style of play is essentially no defense other than the initial pressure, and that doesn\'t really work if the Ducks can\'t hit a shot to save their lives.  The only reason it worked in the first two minutes was that Oregon kept fouling Stanford, forcing the Cardinal to work against the press on their inbounds plays.

Gameball to Jeanette.  17 points in the first half, 20 overall in 20 minutes, punishing the Oregon press again and again.

But also strong secondary consideration for Toni, with her third strong game in a row.  3-3 from the field, including a couple of gorgeous short pull-up jumpers in the lane rather than committing the charge trying to drive all the way to the basket in transition.  4-4 from the FT line.  And watching her streak up court leaving the Oregon "defense" in her dust time and again was viscerally satisfying.

Now on to Kal, and hopefully a wonderful Senior Night for Kayla, Jeanette, Mel, Ashley and Hannah.

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 99 UO 60 - treefan - 02-27-2011

Good recap VG. I was also worried that Nneka was in the game with the Ducks grabbing, holding and pushing players, many while in mid air.

Lindy is fed up with style of aggressive play teams are taking against them as noted in the SJ Merc game story.

http://www.mercurynews.com/stanford-cardinal/ci_17493085?source=rss&nclick_check=1

Re: WBB: Stanford 99 UO 60 - treefan - 02-27-2011

interesting stat and quote in Eugene Register Guard

The Ducks were whistled for a season-high 32 fouls against Stanford, the fifth time in seven games they’ve committed at least 20.

“I would hope that would be indicative of our aggressive play, and our press, our activity trying to steal the ball,” Westhead said. “(But) I don’t know if I can make that one-for-one relationship. I think we’ve gotten caught in what I would call careless fouls. ... But we can get better at that.”

I hope so Paul!

Re: WBB: Stanford 99 UO 60 - M T - 02-27-2011

Boring?  I could agree to "not exciting", but I think the team and fans probably all found it fun, not boring.  It seemed the team played almost perfectly in the first half, except that it was against a team without defense.  But, even then, one can look at Stanford\'s defense.  

And, for the team, I\'m sure all the subs enjoyed being able to get good playing time, and the starters enjoyed that vicariously.  Actually, by the mid-point of the second half, I felt the subs were getting burned out.  They\'ve been used to coming in for maybe 5 minutes, but they had to play 3x as long today.

6 players in double figures (with one more on the brink) and Nneka wasn\'t one of them!    The 47 bench points beat the USF game by 2.  The starters played just 46% of the minutes.  Only one sub played less than 10 minutes.  Oregon\'s 32 fouls were the most this year, as were Stanford\'s 32 FT and 45 FTA.   The surprising number to me was that Stanford was credited with only 4 fast break points.  The starters were 16 of 29(55%)  FG (12 of 19 in 2pt range).

I really do feel Tara\'s been able to develop the depth on her team better than ever before.  Stanford can play well with the obvious 4 plus any one of 4 more.  Barring a 1998-style injury disaster, Stanford should be in the final four without too much worry.

After VG\'s comments about Sarah B.(I\'ll spell it with an "h" as that\'s how it is in the roster, and distinguishes her from Sara J.) needing hand strength, I watched that aspect of her game more attentively today.  I think hand strength is clearly part of it, but I think a bigger problem is not having what we used to call soft hands.  Her fingers are too tense and so the ball tends to bounce a bit off her fingers, and she tends to hold it with her finger tips.  With soft hands, the hand cradles the ball more quickly, and then you can clamp down on it with all your hand strength in case someone swipes at it.

------
Regarding the aggressive play... If it doesn\'t kill you... I think it is better to go through this now with the PAC-10 teams than in, say, the Elite 8.  If anything, the Pac-10 doesn\'t play normally as rough as some of the other conferences.  This should better prepare Stanford.

I don\'t really think that the physical play of Washington contributed directly to shooting 5% for 3-pt shots, but it probably contributed to shooting 6 more 3\'s than average for the total number of shots, which did hurt.  I\'m wondering if it wasn\'t weak decision-making not to try to get the ball inside more -- our TO were normal, our fouls were normal, their fouls were much higher than normal.  

Wash. had 1 more foul when we first played them, when we beat them by 29 pts. It would seem the strategy didn\'t work then.  But Gonzaga had a lot of fouls against us, and that was a too-close game as well (only a couple of extra 3s over average).  In Tempe, ASU fouled Stanford a lot and only lost by 18 after previously losing by a gazillion with about half as many fouls.   Interestingly, DePaul ties for the fewest fouls against Stanford this season.  

So this strategy seems about as useful as putting up a lightning rod in the desert, hoping for a strike to get enough juice to start your car.  A really long shot, but if the stars come together...

------

In the past, I\'ve tracked ratings and RPIs to try to figure out how Stanford compared to other teams (and I\'ve had my share of Rodney Dangerfield complaints).   This year, it hasn\'t seemed worth it.  The top 3 teams seemed obvious, and seemed destined for the final 4.  That\'s tracked pretty well, if you overlook Stanford\'s falling flat on its face at DePaul.  If you add in Tenn, then they played a nice set of games against each other:
Stanford (at home) beat UConn.  UConn (at home) barely beat Baylor. Baylor (at home) beat Tenn.   Tenn (at home) barely beat Stanford.  
Fortunately, none of the those teams are from Indianapolis.  (I\'m going to miss the Pac-10 format of home and away games against each opponent!)

I have no doubt that Stanford should make it to the final 4.  I would give the edge to Stanford against any other team on a neutral court if there are no injuries.  But the game winner isn\'t always the team that is better overall, it is the team that is better that night.  If Stanford again hits a good team that shoots 66% and we shoot 37%, they\'ll be heading home.

------
Ho hum, just another day for the Farm.  I stopped by the softball game after the WBB.  For the day:
#1 W Swim&Diving: Pac-10 champ. meet win;
#1 W. Water Polo win, win over #9;
#1 W. Tennis win;
#2 WBB: win (clinch conf. title);
#2 M. Swim&Diving:  Divers competing in conf. champ.
#4 M. Gym: win over #7;
#4 MVB: win over #3;
#6 M. Track: MPSF conf champ. meet win;  
#8 Baseball: loss to #3;
#8 M. Tennis: loss to #9;
#16 W. Softball: win over #24, win;
#21 W Track: 3rd in MPSF conf;
MBB: win;
Synchro. Swimming: win

Amazing!

Speaking of Senior Night... - motofoto - 02-27-2011

It was unfortunate that the senior night tribute was a day early. Due to the Cal came strating at 8 PM instead of 6 PM, after the Oregon game they had Seniors Mel Murphy, Ashley Cimino (Cinnamon) Jeanette Pohlen and Kayla Pedersen came out and do a nice little Q & A with the crowd. However, it was a little bit of a let down from the usual tributes where everyone goes next door and parents tell stories and teammates reminisce, and it has a cozy, intimate family atmosphere. This one seemed more impromptu and hurried and injured senior Hannah Donaghe wasn\'t even there (she was on a previously scheduled field trip). Just the four seniors came out, no teammates and most parents were not in attendance (exception Jeanette Pohlen\'s parents, who told the story about the first time JP fiercely wrestled away a defensive rebound to put it right back up in the wrong basket.). At one point, Tara VanDerveer stepped away to check on Toni Kokenis and Amy Tucker stepped in, and it would have been nice to hear a little more from Tara about her players.

Still, it was nice to hear what the players were going to do next year. All thanked the crowd for their unwavering support, whether they were up by 30 or down by one. And thought it was great how the fans cheered a basket, whether it was made by a starter or a reserve. Jeanette said part of the record 60 consecutive home wins and counting record was because of the fans. The internet notes they have not lost at home in more than four season, so we guess it is fair to say these seniors don’t know what it is like to lose at Maples.

We heard Stanford was still going to do the flowers and stuff for the seniors at the Cal game on Thursday. Last year, Stanford’s final regular season game was at Cal, and when Cal honored their seniors, they gave flowers to the Stanford seniors (Jayyyyyynnnnne!). Hope Stanford reciprocates.


Re: WBB: Stanford 99 UO 60 - CompSci87 - 02-27-2011

Jeanette\'s dad was funny. I also liked his story about shyly calling up Amy Tucker while Jeanette was being recruited and asking her if Jeanette would have a chance to play point guard. Amy said no, Jeanette was being recruited as a 3-point shooter only.  ;D