The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford @ OSU (preview) - 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 @ OSU (preview) (/thread-2975.html)


WBB: Stanford @ OSU (preview) - M T - 02-15-2012

Viking_Guy wrote
Quote:In any case, who would have thought that one of the biggest games of the season would be at Oregon State on Thursday?  ...

The Beavers, meanwhile, have won 6 in a row for the first time in years, I would bet, and stand 1 game behind Kal in third place in the Pac-12.  Scott Rueck has really done a great job with them, and it will be interesting to see what Stanford learned from their first meeting, when they only won by 7 in a game that I thought OSU gave up on far too early, trailing by single-digits late but not fouling or trying to extend the game.

A 7 point win at home is roughly a 3 to 4 point win in an away game.  It seems worthwhile to think about the upcoming game.

By the way, if you didn't notice, the game will be webcast (apparently with no cost to view it) at
  http://www.osubeavers.com/allaccess/
where you can also find an archived audio broadcast of the previous game.

Some links: CARDboard discussion on the OSU@Stanford WBB game http://www.thecardboard.org/board/index.php/topic,5339.0.html
Stanford WBB Game notes for Stanford@OSU  http://www.gostanford.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/021412aab.html

I think Stanford almost lost the first game because of giving up easy shots (11 (out of 23FGA) layup attempts in 1st half, 8 (out of 28FGA) second).  OSU hit 65% of the first half FGA and 35% in the second half.  Of those 11 1st half layup attempts, only one was a fastbreak and none were after an offensive rebound.  (In the 2nd half, 1 was a FB and 1 was after an offensive rebound.)
Viking_Guy gave a good analysis of why they were getting these shots.  Stanford has to find some way to stop this.

Stanford's offense was lopsided.  Chiney & Nneka got 53 of our 67 points.  In general, Stanford has been distributing the points better than that recently.  As you may recall, Jos had some effective minutes in the OSU game and we may see some good minutes from her, and I think Taylor can also assume that role.  Probably related to the lopsided offense is that just 12% of our FGA were 3PT attempts (our season low, just 2 days after our season high of 52% at Oregon).

A saving grace in that game was domination on the boards.  We outrebounded OSU under our offensive goal, and got 79% of our defensive chances. 

The tallest starter for OSU is on 6 feet 0 inches, which probably explains a number of things.  Stanford probably had instructions to keep feeding Nneka & Chiney, figuring OSU couldn't prevent them from getting the ball, and then couldn't prevent them from making their shots, or getting an OR and making putbacks.  Tara might have suggested that 3ptrs weren't the weapon of choice, esp. since the smaller players are probably quicker to get out on the shooter.




Re: WBB: Stanford @ OSU (preview) - CompSci87 - 02-15-2012

Tara seems to think the players took OSU too lightly when preparing for the first meeting. Quote from today's Merc:

"When they came in here, the orange on Oregon State might not have been as bright as the orange on Tennessee," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said. "We didn't play well the first time we played them. But we're a whole different team now."

Re: WBB: Stanford @ OSU (preview) - 81alum - 02-15-2012

(02-15-2012, 02:45 PM)MT link Wrote:The tallest starter for OSU is on 6 feet 0 inches, which probably explains a number of things. 
When Tara talked to us after the home game she pointed out that OSU had a 6'7" player defending Nneka.  That would have been Thais Pinto, who as you say is not a starter.  She was last year's top junior college center with a 68% FG%, and was a member of the Brazilian national team in 2006--that is quite a few years ago, I'm not sure the story behind her.  In the first game she played 17 minutes and was 2-2 with 3 rebounds--not sure why they did not use her more--Tara clearly thought she hampered Nneka.   

I think Thais plays behind Patricia Bright, who is a starter and is 6'4".  Bright played 22 minutes in the first game and fouled out.  She was 2-5 with just 4 rebounds.  OSU does, then, have a couple of tall players that helped reduce Nneka's efficiency (she was 11-29), but they were not effective on offense and rebounded relatively poorly.

Offensively, OSU killed us with dribble-drives off screens by their three guards: Ali Gibson, Earlysia Marchbanks, and Alyssa Martin.  Those three accounted for 40 points and every one of them shot 50% for the game.  Those three are all 5'11" or 6', which is quite reasonable for guards.

I would guess that OSU will have something new to show us so the second game may not look much like the first game.  But I thought after the first game that we would likely lose in Corvallis unless we 1) started sinking more 3s and 2) figured out how to defend the dribble-drive a whole lot better.

Where I think we have an edge compared with the last game is Chiney's improvement.  Chiney had 20 points on 8-17 shooting with 10 rebounds, and she has been even more effective since then.  I would love to see Taylor come out and nail a couple of 3s to give OSU something to think about.  And Joslyn has come on since that game, so I will hope for her to have an excellent performance against a much shorter defender at the 3.  While OSU does have a couple of taller players, they won't be able to use them guarding the 3 position.


Re: WBB: Stanford @ OSU (preview) - M T - 02-15-2012

Whoops!!  I somehow missed the height of their 6'4" center when I looked at their starting lineup!  Most embarrassing. That should have triggered a "That can't be true" alarm.  Thanks for correcting me.

OSU's stats indicate the same 5 players have started all 24 games.
Bright averages 9.4 pts and 5.1 rebounds, in 22 minutes (normalizes for a full 40 minutes to 17 pts, 9.2 reb, 6.4 blks, 5.7 fouls, 59% FG ; compare to Joslyn's normalized 15.2 pts, 10.0 reb)
Pinto is averaging 14 minutes.  Her normalized numbers are 16.2 pts, 12.1 reb, 2.2 blks, 4.7 fouls, 62% FG.

Clearly neither Bright nor Pinto is anywhere near the player Brittney Griner is, but I would guess that Stanford will be doing things in this game to simulate playing a 6'7" player (Pinto).  Bright's blocked shot rate per 40 minutes is quite close to Brittney's.

If we're wishing for things... I'd wish that all of our 3pt shooters get their shot back, but I'd settle for any of them to be consistently good (>40%)

Interestingly, here are other player's normalized numbers: 
Brittney Griner: 28.2 pts, 11.8 reb, 6.6 blks, 2.4 fouls, 62% FG, 1.5 A, 1.9 TO, 0.6 Stl
Nneka: 30.3 pts, 14.8 reb, 1.2 blks, 2.9 fouls, 53% FG, 2.0 A, 2.8 TO, 1.7 Stl
Chiney: 23.2 pts, 14.9 reb, 1.6 blks, 3.3 fouls, 61% FG, 2.0 A, 3.2 TO, 1.1 Stl


WBB RPI/rankings - M T - 02-15-2012

One of the things that bugs me about the RPI rankings is the possibility that small differences get into the ratings and for them to cause  feedback that magnifies those differences.  Specifically, my concern is if team A is ranked slightly higher than team B (of a different conference) going into conference play (that is, a small set of teams playing each other), then all the conference opponents of A get that marginal benefit by playing against A (either winning or losing), and then they further spread that benefit to other teams in the conference themselves.  So, basically, conference A is lifted by its bootstraps relative to conference B.

Let me emphasize that I don't know the RPI math enough to confirm that is the case.  I'd like to see a sensitivity analysis so I can understand better how these things work.  I do know that it seems strange to see a team's RPI go down as a result of winning a game.

Here's an interesting situation this week.  At http://www.rpiratings.com/womensrpi.php, Stanford is rated 3rd in RPI, ahead of ND & Tenn.  At http://www.rpiratings.com/womrate.php, Stanford is rated 4th, well behind ND, and barely ahead of Duke & Tenn.  When you look at the difference in the SoS in those different ratings, you can see how the little differences get magnified.  Is Ohio State's schedule 61st or 108th?  Should Kansas State be ranked 10th or 23rd?

Yes, the teams that make it to the tourney still have to win their way forward, but the difficulty of the road is set based partially on these RPI/rankings.    I'm really hoping that Stanford doesn't get seeded 4th or 5th overall.