The CardBoard
Stanford-Harvard 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: Stanford-Harvard game thread (/thread-13033.html)

Pages: 1 2

Stanford-Harvard game thread - washingtonismoney - 11-11-2016

Gotta say this looks surprisingly crisp for the first game with a new coach*

*(I wrote this before the odd lob to Reid Travis ending in a slight collision and the turnover from Humph)

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - washingtonismoney - 11-11-2016

Some of the movement off these screens is ... *tears* ... vintage basketball. Seems like some actual offensive coaching is going on.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - TreesAndBirds - 11-11-2016

Nice to hear the occasional "Lets go Stanford" in the background.

11-11 for those who arent watching.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - washingtonismoney - 11-11-2016

Team has cooled off a bit -- absence of Michael Humphrey (due to b.s. foul trouble) has blocked the team a bit.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - Bruce Wang - 11-11-2016

my kids will wake me at 6am east coast.  i dont care. you better believe i am watching my alma maters play each other in my ancestral homeland.  it's not like ive been able to get any sleep this week anyways

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - cardfan77 - 11-11-2016

Refs are calling the game very tight but I like what I see from Stanford so far. 

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - burger - 11-11-2016

Love the full-court outlet passes!  I can't recall the last time I saw us try that.

Refs are making the game near-unwatchable, but this is a promising start.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - washingtonismoney - 11-11-2016

Just me or does the offense look smoother with Cartwright at the point than when Sanders is at it?

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - Bruce Wang - 11-11-2016

Good news!  We got 2nd row seats.  Bad news.  They are behind Yao.

Why does Bill Walton still have a job?  Does anybody enjoy his commentary?

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - washingtonismoney - 11-11-2016

(11-11-2016, 10:49 PM)Publius link Wrote:Why does Bill Walton still have a job?  Does anybody enjoy his commentary?

I'm pro-Walton!

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - TreesAndBirds - 11-11-2016

(11-11-2016, 10:57 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Publius link=topic=16086.msg178826#msg178826 date=1478929749]
Why does Bill Walton still have a job?  Does anybody enjoy his commentary?

I'm pro-Walton!
[/quote]

I give him a pass because he went to Stanford (Law School, early 80s, dont think he graduated) but he does go with his stream of conscious a lot.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - washingtonismoney - 11-11-2016

Stanford wins 80-70 -- a nice solid win. Reid Travis and Humphrey look great. Not as convinced by the rest of the team on offensive *talent,* though they seem to have adapted well to scheme. Line favored Stanford by five, so the team modestly exceeded expectations.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - CompSci87 - 11-11-2016

(11-11-2016, 10:49 PM)Publius link Wrote:Good news!  We got 2nd row seats.  Bad news.  They are behind Yao.

Why does Bill Walton still have a job?  Does anybody enjoy his commentary?

When he's commentating, I turn down the sound to where I can't quite understand what he's saying. Bliss.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - dabigv13 - 11-11-2016

Walton's paean to Boris Diaw is my favorite bit of color commentary ever.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - Langdude - 11-12-2016

I think I've mentioned this before, but I remember once, watching a Clippers game for which he was doing color (can you imagine him doing play-by-play?), and Bill Walton called Eric Piatkowski one of the greatest defensive guards in the history of the NBA. It is for reasons like that that I actually get a kick out of him. I think that he totally plays to his own self-parody. And he has so many interests and experiences beyond his own playing career that I find some of his anecdotes really interesting.

-m.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - DC - 11-12-2016

(11-11-2016, 10:49 PM)Publius link Wrote:Good news!  We got 2nd row seats.  Bad news.  They are behind Yao.

Why does Bill Walton still have a job?  Does anybody enjoy his commentary?

Haha, that's funny.  I was thinking the same thing.  The three seats in the second row directly and diagonally behind Yao should be empty/removed and not sold. No way anyone could see the game very well in those seats.

I couldn't even make out half the words from the rambling coming out of Walton's mouth.  Took too much concentration to figure out what meaningless rubbish he tried to say, so I didn't bother.

Anyway, I'm encouraged by the game.  Players running patterns and moving without the ball.  Lots of driving to the hoop, and they stayed with it even though it didn't work well until the end.  Many players got to play.  Travis a monster on the boards.  The Haase era can be better than the Dawkins era if he can recruit well.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - CompSci87 - 11-12-2016

(11-12-2016, 12:28 AM)Langdude link Wrote:I think I've mentioned this before, but I remember once, watching a Clippers game for which he was doing color (can you imagine him doing play-by-play?), and Bill Walton called Eric Piatkowski one of the greatest defensive guards in the history of the NBA. It is for reasons like that that I actually get a kick out of him. I think that he totally plays to his own self-parody. And he has so many interests and experiences beyond his own playing career that I find some of his anecdotes really interesting.

-m.

It's definitely part of his shtick that so many plays or players are either among the greatest or the worst ever. It feels great for a fan to hear how wonderful his favorite player is, until you realize Walton hands out overpraise like Halloween candy.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - OutsiderFan - 11-12-2016

If anyone was looking for any sign of hope that Pac-12 hoops reffing would be improving, they better keep looking, because that was an atrociously called game.  There were very few legit fouls in that game, yet the teams combined for FIFTY-SEVEN fouls called, most of the ticky-tack variety. For reference, Cal and South Dakota State combined for just 33 fouls.

That all said, wasn't one of the most common gripes about Dawkins Ball was the propensity to shoot 3s.  Stanford was just 1-6 from 3pt range last night, yet still managed to score 80 pts because most of their shots were in the paint or at the FT line.

Harvard's perimeter defense was crazy good. Stanford's guards had absolutely no room to put shots up from deep, so maybe this was just Harvard wanting to take the 3 away and being OK with being beaten inside.  Or maybe it's that Stanford's guards aren't very good shooters.  Cartwright and Sanders combined to go 1-7, and Pickens was only 2-7.  If you can win games shooting such a terrible percentage form the guards, you have the makings of a good team.  I have little doubt Harvard would have beaten Stanford if Dawkins was still the coach because Stanford would have put up at least double the 3pt shots.

Haase seems to know his personnel and how to inspire execution on both sides of the ball.  What a refreshing change.

Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - burger - 11-12-2016

Yeah, it's just one game, but the team stats already look much better than last year, especially in ball control and ball movement, where Dawkins' teams often struggled.

Assists per FG made: yesterday - 0.64, last season average - 0.50
Turnover % (by possession): yesterday - 14.5%, last season average - 17.1%
Assist to turnover ratio: yesterday - 1.56, last season average- 0.97

The point guards didn't do much on offense yesterday, but they handled the ball really well.  Sanders had 5 assists to 1 turnover, and Cartwright had 3 assists, 1 turnover. 

Haase seems to have upped the tempo, too.

Possessions: yesterday - 76, last season average - 69

Here's hoping this is the start of a trend.


Re: Stanford-Harvard game thread - scorecard - 11-12-2016

(11-12-2016, 07:38 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:If anyone was looking for any sign of hope that Pac-12 hoops reffing would be improving, they better keep looking, because that was an atrociously called game.  There were very few legit fouls in that game, yet the teams combined for FIFTY-SEVEN fouls called, most of the tricky tack variety.

The Pac-12 refs made it a horrible game to watch. Walton was right about that in his commentary.  Lot of questionable calls on the block-charge, and a ton of calls off-the-ball that didn't need to be called.  If we are trying to sell college basketball to China, they must feel like they are getting Shanghaied.

My guess is that Sanders starting is in deference to him being a senior.  Cartwright played more meaningful minutes, and agree with washingtonismoney that he is a true point guard and runs the offense better.  But Sanders seemed okay in a backup role, at least no terrible turnovers and made a couple nice plays (throw ahead to Humphrey that led to a dunk and foul when Harvard didn't get back on D). 

Some other thoughts to piggy back on winflop's:

Good:
- movement off the ball, so nice to see back screens and action away from the ball instead of standing and watching
- defensive rotation was much better, still a couple gaffes but generally people rotated well when trapping
- defense of the pick and roll was a lot better
- defensive effort was just much better, always loved Cartwright's ball pressure and hustle, even when it isn't ultra-effective (just annoys other point guards)
- Harvard had no answer for Travis; Travis' body movement looks better, you could tell he was not himself last year
- Verhoeven gave good minutes and was in good position most of the time
- pleased to see Stanback, Haase mostly played the majority of the game with a shot blocker on the floor (Humphrey, Sharma, Stanback)

Bad:
- a few bad habits showed up, couple times we were standing around on rebounds and gave up rebounds off free throws but not too bad
- Sharma got caught looking and gave up the baseline and then compounded it by fouling a dunker who was already finishing the play, worried that would be a momentum changer at that point in the game
- Sheffield in particular was saddled with foul trouble, but I actually think the majority of his fouls were garbage calls so hard to judge; I think he may be our best perimeter one-on-one player (aside from the guys in the post)

Good and bad:
- Reid's free-throw stroke looks better, but he was still 10-19.  It looked like we had a chance to blow the game open if he hits a few more, but hopefully that improves as the season goes.  He did hit a couple jumpers that we didn't see before.Â