The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - 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 86 Ca.l 61 (/thread-3052.html)


WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - 81alum - 03-04-2012

A very impressive win with Stanford dominating from start to finish.  No suspense at any time in this game--well none after the first couple of minutes when Ca.l led 4-0.  Several very positive developments and one item that continues to concern me.

Positives include a superb performance by Toni Kokenis, who had been cold for the last four games.  She finished tonight with a game high 23 points including 3-6 three pointers, and 4 assists to 2 turnovers. 

Also a very positive development was Bonnie's continued 3 point shooting, showing that Wednesday night was not a fluke.  She was 3-6.  The team overall was 8-20 for 40%.  We have been waiting for many games for our three point shooting to come alive and it finally did this week.  That must have been absolutely demoralizing for Ca.l, who came in determined to make life difficult for Nneka and Chiney and force us to take 3 point shots.  Knowing that Toni has not been shooting well, Ca.l players backed off her and dared her to shoot the three--and she sank it.  When the threes began to fall Ca.l must have known their chances were evaporating.

Nneka was 6-13 with 10-11 free throws for 22 points.  She had 0 free throws in the last game, so something definitely changed for the better.  The announcers pointed out that she was sick in the first game.  She certainly looked healthy in this one.  Chiney was only 2-6 but went 8-8 with free throws and finished with 12 points and 12 rebounds.  We have heard other coaches say that they have instructed their players to foul Nneka and Chiney rather than give them easy layups, and so it is very heartening to see both of them shooting wonderfully from the FT line.  Joslyn had another great game too, 16 points with a couple of 3s to give our three headed monster 50 points and 24 rebounds.

Amber had a quiet game, going 1-7 with 1 assist and 1 turnover, and somehow she collected 4 fouls in 14 minutes.  Tara mentioned at halftime that we needed to play better in the second half and mentioned Amber by name.  Frosh are sometimes going to have games like that.  She has been playing very well  recently, but was a little off tonight.  So, too, was Ca.l's Britany Boyd, who was only 3-15.  I think we defended her very well, but she also looked to be a bit wild and nervous at times.  The announcers noted that she was tearful on the sidelines.  It is tough to be a frosh star in a big game, and I think Amber and Britany probably both showed that somewhat.

The one concern I noted was that Taylor did not play--her 3rd missed game.  I am wondering about the seriousness of her injury.  And we did not see Sarah Boothe despite all the rumors that she would be back soon.  Remember that Tara has a long track record of concealing the severity of injuries to her players at this time of year.

Ca.l threw quite a lot of full court pressure against us and we handled it somewhat badly in the first half.  By midway through the second half we were clinically dissecting it with long passes to open players, and they gave up running the press.  It was very good to see a successful adjustment.

All in all, I am highly encouraged that we becoming more multi-dimensional.  If we can keep the 3 point shooting going and keep Toni playing at this level, then we can go a long ways.



Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - M T - 03-04-2012

No upset tonight.  A satisfying win!

Whatever kept Toni from scoring much recently seems to be in the past.  50% outside the arc (3/6) and 75% inside the arc (6/8), scoring 23.

After 10:00 in the 2nd half, it seemed to be sloppy play time.  I was kinda afraid K.al might come back, but the lead was too great. The Kokenis bloody nose came from her being shouldered (seemingly intentionally, but not viciously) by one K.al player into the shoulder of a C.al big.

Thank you, Bonnie!  Those three 3-ptrs helped give us a lead that built the hill C.al just couldn't climb.  12:18 in the 1st half, we had only a 4 point lead.  At 11:10, it was an 11 point lead, thanks to a pair of 3s by Bonnie, sandwiching one from Toni.

Since the 3s were working, we could spread things out.  Last time we had 44 points in the paint.  This time, only 26.

C.al is definitely a physical team.  The total numbers were the same for both teams, but C.al did slightly better percentage-wise. Stanford  O: 14 out of 34 (41%);  D: 27 out of 48 (56%)

Both our offense and defense were good.  Top scorers for C.al were Brandon for 11, and Pierre for 10 -- both off the bench.  Last time, Boyd and Clarendon scored 19 and 17, resp.  This time, they got just 8 and 9.  I'll defer to others to explain just how we did this.    Maybe Stanford was told to give as good as they got.  10 blocks is the best we've done this year.

Boothe was in uniform, but didn't have to play.  I'm sorta surprised that Tara didn't put her in for the last minute.  Greenfield was also in uniform but didn't play.  I guess if they have injuries that come from overuse, it makes sense to keep letting the healing process continue.  Maybe they can rest through the next 5 or so games.

In the men's game, the TV announcer referred to Chiney as "Chin" (nice to have a shout-out, but obviously he doesn't watch or listen to the women's games), and the announcer at C.al referred to her as "Chinnie" (rhymes with Winnie).

Quote:All in all, I am highly encouraged that we becoming more multi-dimensional.  If we can keep the 3 point shooting going and keep Toni playing at this level, then we can go a long ways.
I agree.  But we're at the time of year that it only takes one slip-up.  Gino says his team doesn't have a player who will step up and take over when things get tough.  I think we have at least 3 (O sisters, Toni) and 1 who is always there (Jos).  If Bonnie (or Toni or Jos or Taylor or ...) can deliver 3s when we need them, we can be very good.  I will be pleased when Sarah B. is back so she can work against some of the bigger players we'll come up against.

Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - Viking_Guy - 03-05-2012

A couple of comments:

- A LOT of high dribble weave by Stanford tonight, pulling everyone away from the basket and trying to generate an angle to the basket for a cutter.  Seemed to work well, as it also didn't allow the defense to really set.  Although Berkeley didn't play a lot of really packed in zone tonight that I could see (as others have noted, especially after Toni and Bonnie started to light them up from outside).  Much less static triangle.

- A couple of interesting press breaks against K.al's attempted 2-2-1 trap.  By far the most interesting: Chiney, Nneka and Jos in the backcourt bringing the ball up, able to pass over the top of any attempted trap.  When they crossed the timeline, at least on one possession they found Toni in the right corner, and she took it to the rim, eventually dishing to a cutting Nneka (may have been Chiney) for the finish.  More generally, much more attacking the basket out of the press break.  Of course, the 2-2-1 leaves only one person under the basket to defend, but still, it was nice to see the press get punished when broken, and that really kept da Bares from generating any momentum out of it.

Oh, and Nneka's steal at midcourt and 3/4 of the court drive for the layup was a thing of beauty.

You know, at this point, I think Stanford will receive a #1 seed as long as they make the Pac-12 finals.  First game against the winner of Washington/Oregon on Thursday, I believe.  One note: why not delay the women's tournament an extra day?  The selection show is not until Monday, which means that the Pac-12 final could easily be on Sunday.  Play the two semifinals around the men's final, or before or after the men's final.  All of the games on Wednesday and Thursday will conflict with men's games, and on Friday both semis are played during the workday, so that the men's tourney can play the primetime spots at night.  A one day offset would deal with a lot of those issues, I think.

VG

P.S.  One more interesting thought:  at this point, I think UConn is actually the most likely #1 seed to drop, if they lose another one to Notre Dame, behind Maryland. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - M T - 03-05-2012

RPI ratings this week have #4 Tenn, #5 UConn, #6 Maryland.  http://www.rpiratings.com/womensrpi.php
Another loss will possibly force the committee to avoid giving UConn a #1 seed.

They also show So. C.al at #30 moved ahead of C.al at #31.

ESPN's bracketology is up.  Can you believe they've still included #89 RPI No. Carolina??
Again, he's got Stanford playing at Norman with a likely 2nd round game against a home team with a #22 RPI (ie, what should be a #6 seed).

(03-03-2012, 10:32 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:While it is unlikely that [Fairfield will] beat Marist, if they do, they will be the host of the Bridgeport subregional.  Which, unless the committee forces them into a #16 seed, means that UConn can't be there.
Fairfield beating Marist isn't that far-fetched. (Last game between them Marist won by 6 at home).  If Fairfield makes it, I bet they make UConn a #2 seed (no matter whether they beat ND) and Fairfield a #15

The question is fast becoming how will they line up the teams likely to make the final four?  I suspect they will avoid putting UConn and ND where they have to meet before the final four.  That might force Stanford into the half where they don't meet Baylor until the finals (which seems fair if Stanford is the #2 seed overall).  ie,
Baylor          Stanford
UConn/MD          ND/Tenn




Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - 81alum - 03-05-2012

Something I noticed last night, and I have noticed several other times this year.

Once we have a lead, our players loosen up and shoot better.  If we were able to compare our shooting percentage in the first 10 minutes of the game vs. our shooting percentage in the first 10 minutes of the second half, I bet we would find a large discrepancy.  Last night we started with 3 misses, followed by Joslyn's 3, then 3 more misses.  (At some point during the year an opposing coach commented something to the effect that if you can keep it close, Stanford's offense can be tolerated, but once Stanford gets a lead and the pressure goes down that their players put on a shooting clinic.)

In many games this year the other teams kept it close for much of the first half, but once we get a 10 point lead it rapidly becomes a 20 point lead.  When we get behind or feel the pressure, though, we tend to shoot bricks, like at Connecticut or during the last minutes in the 1st game against Ca.l.  In this game, we shot very poorly at the beginning of the game, but once we finally to back to a 5-4 lead we didn't really look back.  But this is a pretty consistent pattern all year....except we put Ca.l away last night earlier than often happens.

Is this typical for most teams?  Or is this a product of our players having very little experience playing from behind or in close games?  Or is it just that the defensive intensity of opponents is high at the start of games and cannot be sustained? 

As we advance and meet better teams and get into more and more close games this is a concern.  For example, can we shoot the 3 at the same percentage when we are behind as we can when we are ahead?  Or is it only a weapon that we can use to extend leads?

Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - Viking_Guy - 03-05-2012

Well, one scenario just went away.  Marist crushed Fairfield 61-35, and it really wasn't that close.

If Stanford ends up in Norman, I'll be really upset; the Sooners are now in the top 20 in the RPI (#15 or 16, I think.)  One other possibility, I think: Ames, with Iowa State hosting.  But I still say they'll by hook or by crook make Gonzaga an appropriate seed and send Stanford to Spokane.

VG




Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - CompSci87 - 03-05-2012

Ames with Iowa State hosting would have a nice little story line: Taylor Greenfield is from right near ISU. According to the recruiting rumor mill, at least, ISU wanted her badly and she gave serious consideration to going there before picking Stanford.


Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - hoodooskr - 03-05-2012

Only one comment about the great defense! And it was fantastic. Chiney was a real beast at BOTH ends of the court, and Toni was everywhere. Defense is what makes Stanford great this year, and it comes from so many people. Not nearly enough credit is being given the D!!

Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - yvonne - 03-05-2012

Welcome hoodooskr!

Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - M T - 03-05-2012

(03-05-2012, 11:58 AM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:If Stanford ends up in Norman, I'll be really upset

I made a comment about that on the ESPN bracketology site.  Others might want to chime in.  It may be pointless, but maybe someone who decides notices what is griped about.

Is it acceptable for Tara to answer a question in a venue that is carried widely (perhaps immediately after the PAC-12 tourney championship game, assuming all goes well):  "Stanford will get a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament.  There are no good choices of where to put Stanford in the first and second rounds.  What do you see as the better sites for Stanford to play?"

Can we suggest to Mary Murphy to get this question to Tara?  I expect a lot of people would like to hear the answer.  But, maybe there are less public ways for the message to get to the people that matter.


Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - FarmDad.01 - 03-05-2012

Though ESPN WBB proctologist Charlie Creme still lives five graduating classes ago (when UNC was decent and deserved an at-large bid), Viking's question is, I believe, misdirected. More than one year ago, the NCAA WBB braintrust awarded 1st+2nd round sites. Did no brainiac notice that there was only one early site in the Pacific Time Zone? And only three (of 16) west of the Mississippi? Creme is an east-coast-bias jerk, but sending the Cardinal way east to start March Madness is not on his shoulders. (Gonzaga's loss today doesn't affect their placement in Spokane. But the selection committee now has a reason to send Stanford to Spokane early, despite the regular-season mismatch between those squads.)

Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - Viking_Guy - 03-05-2012

FarmDad--

I think the bigger issue is that no one but Stanford and Gonzaga are bidding to host; I think none of the Pac-12 teams are confident enough of making the tourney year to year to take the risk of a "neutral" pod coming to their site and losing money.  Tara mentioned that she didn't understand why UCB didn't bid to host, though given their AD mismanagement, I wouldn't put it down to anything other than incompetence.  Actually, the NCAA did announce today that the 2014 sites won't be announced until spring 2013, rather than fall 2012 as has been the normal timeframe.  Maybe they're trying to figure out more likely top-4 hosts.

I wish Stanford would take a page out of Gonzaga and UConn's book: find a semi-local team like Santa Clara to "host", as UConn does with Fairfield and other CT schools, and either aboveboard or below guarantee their ticket sales.  The fact that the Spokane Regional is "hosted" by WSU (75 miles away vs. Gonzaga's about 3 miles from the arena) shows that the system can be played, I think.  Though SCU's facility may not make the minimum size requirement.

Does anybody have any info on "neutral" vs. home hosting attendance figures on the West Coast?  Wasn't the one at SC a few years back lucky to get 2000 in attendance?

But all in all, until ESPN changes its mind on pre-determined sites, I don't foresee a lot of change.  They're calling the shots.

VG

Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - treefan - 03-05-2012

(03-05-2012, 11:58 AM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:Well, one scenario just went away.  Marist crushed Fairfield 61-35, and it really wasn't that close.

If Stanford ends up in Norman, I'll be really upset; the Sooners are now in the top 20 in the RPI (#15 or 16, I think.)  One other possibility, I think: Ames, with Iowa State hosting.  But I still say they'll by hook or by crook make Gonzaga an appropriate seed and send Stanford to Spokane.

VG

I'd be very upset too. Haven't we seen OU enough in the NCAAs? The Comm. needs to be more creative and send us somewhere else. Basketball is the only reason to go to the state of Okl, but I doubt I'd go because of the not so fun experience and outcomes of the games we've played there. Of all the choices, I'd prefer any sub-regional ahead of OU.

Re: WBB: Stanford 86 Ca.l 61 - M T - 03-06-2012

(03-05-2012, 10:29 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:I think the bigger issue is that no one but Stanford and Gonzaga are bidding to host; I think none of the Pac-12 teams are confident enough of making the tourney year to year to take the risk of a "neutral" pod coming to their site and losing money.  Tara mentioned that she didn't understand why UCB didn't bid to host
I think the L.A. schools are not confident enough that their home teams could draw enough to take a risk.  Otherwise, maybe the conference could help guarantee a PAC-12 sub-regional each year.
(UCLA and USC each had only one game at home with over 2000 in attendance.  Tell me again why the women's tourney is in L.A.?)

Hmmm... maybe moving to a system where conferences, rather than schools, provide the sites might be a better way to do things.  I guess that's less compelling with geography having little relevance for conferences.

Are rules/guidelines for selection listed somewhere?  (Also, are rules/guidelines for placing teams in the brackets available somewhere?)

(For anyone interested, the 2013 sites are listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NCAA_Women%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament
Stanford is one of the first round sites.  But next would be Spokane (900 miles, 0 time zones), then Boulder (1300 miles, 1 time zone), then Lubbock (1400 miles, 2 time zones), Waco (1800 miles, 2 time zones), College Station (1800 miles, 2 time zones).

Avg home attendance WBB:
Stanford: 4250 (max 7329)  Colo: 2839  K.al: 2076 (max 7864)  Ariz: 1900 ASU: 1804  OSU: 1789 Ore: 1526  UCLA: 1110  USC: 1099 Utah: 775
Tenn: 14,414    Conn: 9165

Some MBB home attendance numbers:
K.al: 8532 (max 11877)  UCLA: 6352 (max 9785)  Stanford: 5393 (max 6899)  USC: 3970 (max 8474)

Men+Women:
K.al: 10608  Stanford: 9643;  UCLA: 7462  USC: 5069