The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 68 UC Davis 42 - 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 68 UC Davis 42 (/thread-13165.html)

Pages: 1 2

WBB: Stanford 68 UC Davis 42 - 81alum - 12-03-2016

Preliminary:

We face off against a very good 5-1 UC Davis in our last home game for almost a month.  Davis hasn't played anyone substantial, but they are a winning program with nothing to lose and Gonzaga should have taught us to take nothing for granted.  Two years ago Bonnie hit 30 points to beat them, last year Bri and Alanna had good games. 

Davis is led by Canadian Dani Nafekh, a 5'11" junior guard who is averaging 15 points and 61% of her three point tries, and by Morgan Bertsch, a 6'4" redshirt sophomore forward who is averaging 16 points on 58% shooting.  The team is well balanced, however, with two other starters in double digits.  This is the team that used to play that very odd zone, but I don't know if they still use it--box and 1 I think.

Overview:

A superb first quarter with crisp passing and numerous  assists preceded a somewhat dreary 3 quarter grind-it-out with many fewer assists, as Stanford coasts to a win.

Flow of the Game:

Tara started the small lineup again, with McCall joined by Karli at the 4, Britt at the 3, Bri at the 2, and Marta at point.  During the chalk talk Tempie explained that we had been using Karlie at the four whenever we felt there was a forward she could guard, since she gives us more experience and having an extra shooter helps to open up the offense at the other end.  To me, that says that Tara is quite uncertain about the 4 position since Kaylee's injury.  Kaylee should be back for Pac 12 play, we hope.

The first quarter was one of the prettiest quarters to watch in quite some time.  We were passing fluidly, quickly, and assisting on numerous layups.  Meanwhile, the defense was well prepared for Davis's offense.  In the past Davis has been said to use the Princeton offense, but Tempie said to expect an offense where players were breaking to the basket constantly.  We didn't see a lot of that.  Our players were superbly prepared to cut off those breaks--I saw only a couple successful backdoor cuts all game.    Davis was flumuxed and had scored only 5 points until they hit a trey with seconds on the clock at the end of the first quarter.  There were a couple of concerns in the first quarter--Karlie had missed all her threes, and everyone was missing free throws.  Still, the quarter ended Stanford 20 Davis 8.

In the second quarter, our defense continued to play well and limited Davis to only 12 points.  Our offense slowed down some, however, as Alanna and Nadia entered the game and we abandoned the small offense.  Erica began converting some layups, Bri hit a three, and Britt took it to the basket and got a couple of layups, including one reverse, and an +1, although she failed to convert the free throw.  The half ended Stanford  36 Davis 20.  We hit only 1 of 8 treys, Karlie missing all 3 of her attempts, and we made only 1/8 free throws, which was a team effort.  Tara had Karlie come out at the end of the half to practice her threes, and she even rebounded for her briefly.  The message was clear.

The third quarter, however, was not good from the standpoint of offense, but our defense continued to smother Davis, giving up just 6 points.  I guess the disadvantage of having a clever system is that when the other side "solves" it you have nothing to fall back on.  But on offense it was a frustrating quarter.  Our first basket came half way through the quarter by DiJonai after a Bri steal.  We had some free throws prior to that, but missed layups, jumpers, and a turnover made us look inept compared with the first quarter.  Other than free throws, two layups by DiJonai and one by McCall were the whole production.  Stanford 47 Davis 26.

The fourth quarter was a time of experimentation and it seemed to work on offense but not on defense.  Marta, Alanna, Alexa, Nadia all scored in the early going, but we also began to give up some jumpers.  Alexa's shot looked good today, and she hit a three to put us over 60 and I sighed from relief.  I hate defensive slugfests when the winning team is in the fifties.    We traded baskets and the clock ran out Stanford 68 Davis 42.

Performances:

I don't entirely trust wins when we simply overpower a smaller team, usually measured in a massive rebounding advantage--it is an advantage we will not have most of the rest of the year.  And that was what happened today, where we collected 36 defensive rebounds to their 25, or a total of 54 rebounds to their 38.  We held them to 23% shooting, while we shot 44%--should have been higher.  Once again, our three point shooting was terrible, a horrific 16%, and our free throw shooting wound up at 38%.  Those statistics will cost us games, perhaps beginning at Tennessee, if we don't straighten them out quickly. 

As for individuals, Erica was reliable as always, with another double/double of 17 points and 13 rebounds.  Tara even sent her back in late in the fourth quarter to steady the team of frosh and sophomores that were a bit shaky.

McPhee did quite well with 11 points, but they were not especially efficient.  She missed both of her three point attempts, made 3/5 free throws, and was most effective making layups while crashing into blocking defenders.  One of the replays showed pretty clearly that McPhee should have been called for charging.  She is fearless but needs to avoid being reckless.

No one else was in double digits.  Bri was having a superb game in the first half with 7 points, but then not another point from her.  Karlie shockingly ended up with 2 points--both early in the first half.  It was a nice basket--she faked the three and got her defender to jump up in the air, then calmly went around her to swoosh a mid range jumper.  But other than that, she was 0/5, had only 1 rebound, and a couple of assists.  She did not seem like her normal self.

As for the other bigs, Alanna was 2/2 with 7 rebounds and 1 foul in 18 minutes.  Before the game Tempie noted that Alanna had gained confidence this year and was learning the American system.  There were some physical moves that are quite acceptable in international play that get called fouls often in American play.  That was the hardest adjustment for her--she has mostly learned but still sometimes relapses.  It is hard to change many years of training.

Nadia was 3/8 with 8 rebounds and 2 fouls in 18 minutes.  Before the game Tempie said that Nadia was coming along and she would not be surprised if she got a start before the end of the year.  But she did many things for her high school team and has to learn to work more within the Stanford system, where she needs to be more specialized and play on the blocks.  She can make threes, but we have other people to do that.  Tempie was pretty clear that they don't want to see her shooting threes, even though she can be successful.  Well, this game Nadia was 0/2 from three point range.

Both point guards distributed fairly well.  Marta had 5 assists to 3 turnovers, one or two overly aggressive passes.  Bri had 3 assists to 1 turnover.  However, there were several times when Marta was open for a three and she passed up the chance.  Perhaps it was too early in the shot clock.  On the other hand, she let the clock wind down on a couple of occasions and took it to the basket herself at the last second.  Sadly, only 1 of 6 such efforts went in.

Conclusion:

It is hard for me to believe that Tara will start a small lineup against Tennessee, which has many talented large players.  Will it be Alanna or Nadia?  Either way, we simply have to get our guards to shoot threes better than this, and we have to sink at least the majority of our free throws, if we expect to return from our coming road trip with even a single win. 



Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - CompSci87 - 12-03-2016

Box and one is where four players play a 2-2 zone and the fifth mans up on the other team's best player. So I don't think it can be that.

Did you mean 2-1-2 zone? I remember someone playing that, and Tara was intrigued enough that she had Stanford play it a little. I can't recall if it was Davis.

Another odd zone is 1-3-1. I've seen Cal use that as a changeup.


Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - 81alum - 12-04-2016

(12-03-2016, 11:52 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Box and one is where four players play a 2-2 zone and the fifth mans up on the other team's best player. So I don't think it can be that.

Did you mean 2-1-2 zone? I remember someone playing that, and Tara was intrigued enough that she had Stanford play it a little. I can't recall if it was Davis.

Another odd zone is 1-3-1. I've seen ןɐɔ use that as a changeup.
Yes, I think it was the 2-1-2 zone.  It was very active and yes Tara did have us play it a little. 

Davis also has, in the past, specialized in the Princeton offense.  Don't know if they will today.

Some previous recaps:
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=13628.msg141410#msg141410
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=11388.msg108888#msg108888
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=8879.msg75051#msg75051

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - 81alum - 12-04-2016

Here are my notes from Tempie's chalk talk about Davis two years ago:

Quote:2) UC Davis.  Davis plays the Princeton offense very effectively, Tempie said, with lots of movement and cuts, and low bounce passes past defenders.  It plays a unusual swarming defense that we have tried a couple of times.  We had one day to prepare for both of these unusual schemes.

So I don't know what the technical term is for "unusual swarming defense"!

Two years ago Davis was in the game until close to the end, and it took a 30 point performance from senior Bonnie to put them away 71-59.  We were installing our new guard oriented offense and had just come back from a rotten showing against Chattanooga and Tennessee.  Last year we had 4 in double digits and had a much more comfortable win.  Lili was coming back from an injury, so we had just about the same lineup last year as we can expect this year.  Bri and Alanna had good games.

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - JJJ - 12-04-2016

starting here now

http://pac-12.com/live/stanford-university

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - Spiny_Norman - 12-04-2016

What is the occasion for the turquoise uniforms?

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - CompSci87 - 12-04-2016

(12-04-2016, 03:07 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:What is the occasion for the turquoise uniforms?

Recognition of Native Americans. It seems to be an annual thing.

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - CompSci87 - 12-04-2016

BTW, I think Davis is playing man. At least it looks nothing like the 2-1-2 that I remember.

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - JJJ - 12-04-2016

(12-04-2016, 03:09 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16226.msg181615#msg181615 date=1480889245]
What is the occasion for the turquoise uniforms?

Recognition of Native Americans. It seems to be an annual thing.
[/quote]
I wouldn't mind a turquoise replica jersey.

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2016/12/3/womens-basketball-stanford-hosts-nike-n7-game.aspx

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - 82 Card - 12-04-2016

(12-04-2016, 03:07 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:What is the occasion for the turquoise uniforms?

Explanation on Go Stanford: http://www.gostanford.com/news/2016/11/28/womens-basketball-stanford-partners-with-n7.aspx

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - CompSci87 - 12-04-2016

Karlie to the locker room. Oh oh.

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - CompSci87 - 12-04-2016

(12-04-2016, 03:57 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Karlie to the locker room. Oh oh.

Never mind, she is back in the game.

Re: WBB: Stanford v. UC Davis Sunday 2pm - CompSci87 - 12-04-2016

Now some 2-1-2

Re: WBB: Stanford 68 UC Davis 42 - TheFarm07 - 12-04-2016

(12-03-2016, 11:30 PM)81alum link Wrote:
Performances:

I don't entirely trust wins when we simply overpower a smaller team, usually measured in of exceedingly large proportions rebounding advantages--it is an advantage we will not have most of the rest of the year.  And that was what happened today, where we collected 36 defensive rebounds to their 25, or a total of 54 rebounds to their 38.  We held them to 23% shooting, while we shot 44%--should have been higher.  Once again, our three point shooting was terrible, a horrific 16%, and our free throw shooting wound up at 38%.  Those statistics will cost us games, perhaps beginning at Tennessee, if we don't straighten them out quickly. 

What happened to our free throw shooting? The percentage is atrocious; I noticed that our free throw shooting the last couple of seasons have not been good. I am sure Tara is emphasizing that in practice, but it would be good to know why it seems to a team issue.

Re: WBB: Stanford 68 UC Davis 42 - 81alum - 12-04-2016

Recap is done at the top.

With regard to free throw shooting--I have no idea why it sometimes go bad, and why it seems infectious from player to player.  It think in sports the power of visualization can be powerful.  When my daughter competed in gymnastics, if one teammate fell on beam, it seemed like the next three would fall too.  I knew some coaches that would not let their team watch their teammates' performances for that reason.  Well, you can't hide a bad free throw from your teammates, and I wonder about the subliminal message it implants when a normally sharp shooter misses a couple.

From what Tempie has said in previous years, one of the worst things you can do during a free throw slump is to have your team start practicing a whole bunch of free throws--it simply increases the pressure and nerves,  when instead you want shooters to rely on their instinctual muscle-memory.  These are kids who have each shot tens of thousands of practice free throws before they get to Stanford--it is purely mental as this point. 

That said, Karlie was out at halftime by herself shooting some free throws--although she had no attempts in the game.

Re: WBB: Stanford 68 UC Davis 42 - CompSci87 - 12-04-2016

Thanks for the great recap as always, 81.

About Davis's offense: At the season ticket holder postgame event, Tara said that she asked the Davis coach why she changed to a different offense this year, and the reply was that it took the players too long to learn the Princeton scheme, so they couldn't contribute until they were juniors or so. (Tara mentioned this to contrast with how fast our freshman and sophomores have picked things up and have been able to contribute.)

Re: WBB: Stanford 68 UC Davis 42 - CompSci87 - 12-04-2016

(12-04-2016, 03:11 PM)JJJ link Wrote:[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=16226.msg181617#msg181617 date=1480889374]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16226.msg181615#msg181615 date=1480889245]
What is the occasion for the turquoise uniforms?

Recognition of Native Americans. It seems to be an annual thing.
[/quote]
I wouldn't mind a turquoise replica jersey.

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2016/12/3/womens-basketball-stanford-hosts-nike-n7-game.aspx
[/quote]

Tara said something at the postgame about how you could buy N7 apparel from "the web site" and it would benefit N7.  But I can't find where to do that -- at least not replica jerseys.

Re: WBB: Stanford 68 UC Davis 42 - chimera - 12-04-2016

(12-04-2016, 08:04 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Thanks for the great recap as always, 81.

About Davis's offense: At the season ticket holder postgame event, Tara said that she asked the Davis coach why she changed to a different offense this year, and the reply was that it took the players too long to learn the Princeton scheme, so they couldn't contribute until they were juniors or so. (Tara mentioned this to contrast with how fast our freshman and sophomores have picked things up and have been able to contribute.)

I thought that was really interesting.  One thing we can say for sure is that our players generally improve a lot.  Bri Roberson is a much better point guard than she last year and much better than earlier in her career.  Brit McPhee is at a whole different level.  We know what happened with Bird.  Not everyone improves but almost all our returning players are noticeably better.  I love that.

As for the Davis game, we did not shoot well at all from the filed or the FT line but most everything else was pretty decent.  Davis missed a whole lot too, some due to good D from us, some just they were off too.  Considering we are down a starter (Kaylee was said to be about two weeks away from a return), a good effort, and most important to me, we started strong, which makes such a difference in the tone of a game.  Starting strong allows a team to slide through the lulls in good shape, gives them margin for error.  We looked very ready to play.  The shots will fall better in most games, I'm sure.  Nice to win big without shooting well.

Re: WBB: Stanford 68 UC Davis 42 - TheFarm07 - 12-05-2016

With the two week finals break here and 9 games down, we are almost a third of the way through the season (12 non-conference games, 18 conference games), I thought some statistics would be some nice food for thought to complement the excellent game recaps by 81alum and other great qualitative analyses that we have here on the CardBoard.

Team Stats:

We are 8-1 in our first 9 games with 6 comfortable wins (average margin of victory in those games: 31 points) and 3 close games including our loss to Gonzaga.

We have a +111 rebound advantage (388 to 277)
  - On our misses, we have 113 offensive rebounds to our opponents' 187 defensive rebounds, meaning we recover 37.7% of our missed shots
  - On our opponents' end, they have 90 offensive rebounds to our 275 defensive rebounds, which translates to them grabbing 24.7% of their missed shots

We have a narrow advantage in turnover margin (+5) as we lost the ball 128 times (14.2 tpg) and our opponents have turned it over 133 times (14.8 tpg). I haven't looked at our historical stats, but it seems that even when we were elite, turnover margin was never our strong suit.

Our opponents actually have had more field goal attempts (544) to ours (541).

One big advantage for us is that we've been to the free throw line 78 more times (184 to 106).

Offense

Over the 9 games, we are averaging 76.6 ppg, shooting 48.4% from the field, 31.2% from 3-point range and 63.6% from the free throw line (the last two stats are ones that Tara will want to improve upon, especially the latter).

We are averaging 17.6 assists per game on an average of 29.1 made shots, so 60% of our field goals have assists on them. We have gone to the free throw line 184 times so far, which is an average of 20.4 per game. Of the 541 field goal attempts, 154 of them have been downtown, so we have a 30/70 divide between long range shots and inside the arc.

Defense

We are allowing 54.1 ppg on 34.2% shooting (28.7% from 3-point range) and 63.2% from the free throw line. Our opponents are only averaging 9.3 assists per game on an average of 20.7 made shots for a rate of 44.9%. It seems that we do a good job of isolating players and forcing them to make a shot on their own.  Our opponents have a similar 30/70 divide between 3-pointers and closer shots

Individual Stats:

Big Three:

As expected, our big three of Erica (17.2 ppg), Brittany (14.6) and Karlie (10.6) lead our team in scoring and are our only three players averaging double digit points.

ERICA McCALL - 17.2 ppg, 8.6 rpg, (53.6% FG%), 1.9 blocks per game, 4 double-doubles
BRITTANY McPHEE - 14.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, (52.6% FG%)
KARLIE SAMUELSON - 10.6 ppg, shooting 47.5% from 3-point range and averaging 7.2 field goal attempts per game. Karlie also leads the team in steals (14)

Point Guards:

Between Bri and Marta, Bri is the better scorer (6.0 ppg, 44.0% from the field) and a better defender, but Marta has far more assists (44 to 25) and a better assist to turnover ratio (2.1 to 1.6)

BRIANA ROBERSON - 6.0 ppg, 2.8 apg (44.0% FG%, 34.8% 3PG), 25 assists to 16 turnovers. She's also second on the team behind Karlie in made three-pointers and three point percentage
MARTA SNIEZEK - 4.4 ppg, 4.9 apg (38.2% FG%), 44 assists to 21 turnovers (she only attempted TWO 3-point shots all season long and missed them both -- no wonder teams are giving her so much clearance). She actually leads the team in FT% at 82.4%, better than Karlie (73.7%). Kaylee is actually second at 80%

Who's the Fifth Starter?:

Kaylee's sample size is smaller as she only played in the first 4 games before going down with an injury and therefore her numbers have also been affected, but she was averaging 5.5 ppg and 6.0 rpg despite shooting 29%. Alanna and Nadia are both averaging around 6.0 ppg though Fingall is far more efficient (65.9% to 39.6% FG%), but Smith collects more rebounds (5.9 to 3.3) and the Australian is playing more minutes (17.1 to 12.6)

KAYLEE JOHNSON - 5.5 ppg, 6.0 rpg (29.2% FG%)
ALANNA SMITH - 5.9 ppg, 5.9 rpg (39.6% FG%, 18.2% 3P%, 54.2% FT%), all these percentages need to improve, but she's only averaging 1.4 personal fouls per game
NADIA FINGALL - 6.3 ppg, 3.3 rpg (65.9% FG% - if you take away her 1/7 3-point shooting, she's hitting an incredible 76.5% of her shots) in only 12.6 minutes per game. She's the only bench player (as in not having started at least one game so far in the season) to have appeared in all 9 games

Bench Players:

Carrington and Coffee have both appeared in 8 of the 9 games though the freshman has played more minutes (86 to 52) than the sophomore, but they have averaged around 3.5 ppg each. In fact, despite playing in nearly all the games, Shannon is averaging the least amount of minutes (6.5) of anyone on the team besides Wilson who hasn't played yet.

Brewer and Romano have made 6 appearances a piece and the sophomore guard has only attempted 10 shots all season long. The freshman, despite playing only 8 minutes a game, is fifth on the team in 3-point attempts, but only has a 31.3% shooting percentage to show for it.

DiJONAI CARRINGTON - 3.4 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 54.5% FG%, 10.8 mpg (minutes per game)
SHANNON COFFEE - 3.8 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 64.7% FG%, 6.5 mpg
MIKAELA BREWER - 2.8 ppg, 31.3% 3P%, 8.7 mpg
ALEXA ROMANO - 1.3 ppg, 1.3 apg, 11.5 mpg

Unfortunately, there are no numbers to report for Anna Wilson. Hopefully, she'll be able to play this season.

Re: WBB: Stanford 68 UC Davis 42 - 81alum - 12-05-2016

Great job summing up the season in stats, so far, Farm! 

Tempie noted at yesterday's chalk talk that Carrington  was injured over the summer and Brewer was away playing for her national team, so Fingall got a three month head start adjusting to the Stanford system.  Not sure exactly what that means given that there are no official practices, but I presume that the other players who are on campus must teach each other.  In any case, that is probably why Nadia is integrating a little faster into the system.

That note about Tara's talk with the Davis coach about why Davis has abandoned the Princeton offense is instructive in another way--it seems that while Tara does not run the Princeton, she does run a system that takes longer for players to learn than some others.  That was true of our abandoned triangle too--not sure why it is true now, but it appears to be.  It ties in with how much our players improve, and how much Tara leans on seniors.  Taylor Greenfield became a star player only at the very end of her senior year.  Bonnie didn't start a game until her junior year.  Kayla,  Jayne, and Chiney  started from the beginning of their careers--but were shadows of their future selves.  Nneka did not start until half way through the season largely due to constant foul problems.  Amber did not start until half way through her freshman season either.  Sara James played very sparingly before starting in her junior year.  Ruef did not start a game until her redshirt senior year. 

This is, I think, one of the differences between Stanford WBB and some other teams.  Certain other teams attract great physical talent that plays well in relatively simple systems and takes less preparation.  Tara runs sophisticated offenses and defenses that leverage one of the advantages that we have--high intelligence and discipline.  Unfortunately, it takes time--sometimes years--for her players to learn the system well enough to internalize it in muscle memory.  Tempie talks about frosh being "a step or two slow" since they are pausing to think a bit too much.  Those who don't get started until November have an even greater disadvantage. 

Someone like Karlie, who was not a physically gifted as some other players, nevertheless has become a crucial contributor because she knows Tara's systems better than anyone else on the court, and can play four positions and know exactly what to do in any situation.

It is frustrating that it takes such a long time to integrate our frosh--and we will no doubt feel the same way next year with another outstanding group coming in.  But I think it is also what has made Stanford so competitive over the years despite the severe limitations on our admissions.