The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 62 C.al 53 - 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 62 C.al 53 (/thread-4691.html)


WBB: Stanford 62 C.al 53 - 81alum - 01-08-2013

The score of this game should not conceal that it was very close much of the way--so close in fact that C.al led for the majority of the game.  Stanford took a lead 6 minutes into the second half but C.al tied it up again with 8 minutes left.  Then Stanford gradually pulled away on a 12-3 run and the tension eased.  The announcers observed that both sides played good defense but that C.al went "cold" late in the second half, and it is true that they missed many wide-open three point shots.  It was clear that Stanford had decided in the second half to do everything possible to stop C.al's inside game after we were burned by a series of putbacks off of O-boards in the first half.  Stanford even went zone once or twice.  And C.al could not capitalize with outside shooting.

Chiney had 26 points but only 6 rebounds.  She was hitting many of the same shots she attempted against Connecticut, and I don't think it was just because of Dolson's defense.  She was "on".  In the second half, almost every replay of a Chiney basket showed lots of contact with C.al players, yet she got only 5 free throw attempts on 16 shots.  In the first half she made a long two point jumper from the top of the key that showed emphatically that her jump shot has improved.  And she made a couple of magnificent, undefendable hook shots.  She was 11/16 so her percentage was significantly improved over other tight games this year.

Amber's offense was strong today, 6/10 for 15 points.  She also turned the ball over 5 times--at least a couple of them when she was driving to the basket and ran into a forest.  She was 3/4 on free throws, but on a couple of her more successful drives she did not get the benefit of the and-1 foul calls when  she should have.  Basically, every shot from near the basket involved plenty of contact and there could have been a foul called on every one.

Joslyn had 8 points, two of them on a long pass from Amber for a layup that punished C.al for not getting back on defense.  Toni had 7 and Mikaela had 5.  It was nice to see Mikaela going strong to the basket a couple of times--she was 2/2.  But her free throw slump continued--she was 1/4.

Three points of concern for me.  First, we were outrebounded 43-28, a very big disparity.  On offense it was worse.  C.al had 20 O-boards and we had 4.  In the first half 60% of the C.al offense came off of offensive rebounds.  We did a bit better in the second half, but still!

Second, our free throw shooting was only 58%.  Third, we were 0/8 from three.  At numerous times in the game a three point basket would have been a major momentum changer--it was that kind of tight battle--but Bonnie's 2 attempts were significantly off target, Joslyn missed 3, and Toni missed 2.  We are now deep into the second year of a three point drought. 

On the positive side we kept our turnovers down to 9--and at least two times we did punish the press--and C.al mostly gave up on it after we did.  We also had 11 assists, with Amber and Jos each dishing out three.  And here is an odd statistic--our leading rebounder was the shortest starter--Amber--with 8.  7 blocks also helped to keep C.al's offense cold.  They shot just 30% but made 11 more attempts than we did.

I am curious about Sara James.  Tara inserted her in the first half for just 1 minute and then she did not play again.  After her outstanding previous game and our desperate need for 3 point shooting, a fan might think she would play more.  However, I presume that Tara must have seen something about Sara's defense that made her think it would not be a good matchup in this game.

This game is confirmation of the kind of team that Stanford has this year.  There is no denying that we are playing good defense.  In fact, this may be one of our better defensive teams--I will have to check the archives and look at some stats.  The main thing we did well on defense was getting back and forcing C.al repeatedly into the half-court, which does not seem to be their forte.

There were a few hopeful signs on offense, but I do not think we will be winning many games against quality opponents by scoring 80 points--at this stage there just are not enough offensive playmakers, nor enough 3 point shooting.  If every game we made an additional 3-4 three point shots then we would be having an average offensive year for a Stanford team.  It has repercussions on the rest of the play, and it makes for a different kind of basketball than we are used to seeing from Tara's teams.  We are all hoping that Tara is able to improve the team's offense significantly during conference play. 

And now, C.al and Stanford have film to dissect as they get ready for their round two this week.





Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - treefan - 01-09-2013

good recap 81.

I almost lost a lung at Haas screaming at refs for not calling Kal on rough play.

This picture says it all. Chiney was tough as nails tonight!

[Image: ncw_a_ogwumike_gb1_576.jpg]

Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - 81alum - 01-09-2013

I should have mentioned one of the most unusual and clever plays I have ever seen.  With the shot clock about to expire at 2 seconds, Joslyn had to inbound from near the half court line.  She heaved a long arcing pass (looked like a shot from out of bounds!) that grazed the backboard and fell into Chiney's hands for an easy lay-in.  Amazing.  Only possible because the clock does not start until someone touches the ball.

Here are some stats to illustrate what I was saying about our offense and defense:

Year    Point Per Game  Points Allowed per Game
12-13  70.5                  51.9
11-12  76.0                  55.3
10-11  79.3                  55.5
9-10    76.1                  53.0
8-9      76.1                  55.8
7-8      75.1                  56.4

As far as three point shooting goes, we are hitting 31% this year and last year.  In 09-10 we hit 36%.

Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - M T - 01-09-2013

No one's (and not the article linked from the half time thread) mentioned the 11:00 minute drought of baskets by the Barely Theres.  Speaking of barely there's, the refs surely let them play.  C.al was like velcro, always hooking someone's arm and not letting them move.  I remember Bonnie getting pulled away from a rebound that way; it really looked odd.  I also remember seeing her get shoved from behind on a rebound so she was doubled over, and then she was shoved again for good measure.

Chiney didn't get a double-double again,  but it took a mob to hold her down.  She still did her damage from around the court.  She's hungry to win and she's got the skill to make it happen, with a little help from her friends.

I don't mean to imply that C.al only got their rebounds only by hook & crook.  The pushed Stanford around with their body, with refs looking for touch fouls.  We still haven't been blocking out.  C.al is definitely the best rebounding team we've seen.

The TV announcers (sorry, I couldn't watch the game live so I didn't get to hear KZSU) commented that C.al wasn't hitting outside, so both offense & defense were crowding the paint, and it was like a mosh pit.  I think it was more like a scrum.

Mikaela stood up to the physical play and did well.  Tara put her in with 3 fouls early and she got a 4th quickly.  She was put in again and survived the game. 

I don't know if Tara points things out that to provide motivation to the team, but Stanford was outshot by C.al at the free throw line(!) and from the 3pt line.

Obviously Toni was back in good health today.

I don't understand Tara's choice of who gets playing time this year.  As 81Alum said, Sara got a minute between the 5th and 6th minute of the game, and after a foul, she was yanked until the last 20 seconds.  During that minute, we were playing 3 guards.  I guess that's what Tara was looking to see if it worked.  When it didn't, Sara came out.

Ok, the numbers.
Zero, nada threes, for the second time this season (So. Carolina).  5 OR is our lowest this year.  We got 17% of OR chances, which is our lowest this year, and half of our average. We got just 55% of our DR chances, 2nd lowest of the year.  So, OR%+DR% = 73% (low of the year by 20%) means we were wiped of the boards.  We got just 1 bench point, for the low of the year.  18 fouls is the most this season.  56% FT% just barely beat out our low of the season by 1% (UConn). Virtually the only notable positive statistic was 8 FBP which I hope means we're going to do more of that. But I'll also mention our 60% shooting for 2PT, giving us 51% for FG%.  I think the FBP helped there; it sure wasn't easy put-backs.  But, of course, the best stat was the W.

You might think that we must have had good defense, right.  Not really, at least not for us. Our record number of fouls gave them our season high for FTA and FT.  Their rebounding domination led to a season high 22 second-chance points.  They tied our opponent's season high with 6 FBP.  I don't think they can blame their 10% 3PT% on our strong defense at the 3pt line.  But their offense in general was near average against us in many categories.


While I watched the game, I felt a cautious optimism despite our being down a bit.  We weren't falling apart.  I guess I thought our skill and our ability to adapt would eventually win out, over the school ground fracas approach.

When they come to our house, we would expect to do better, but how?  Well, I hope we sink more 3s than them.  I don't see how we could shut down their offense unless we learn how to block out in the next few days.  More likely, they'll get more offense.  Maybe we can get a better outcome in the foul department, which might then lead to more bench time for a starter or two (versus that happening to us).  Maybe we'll realize we can send Amber back after we miss a shot rather than Jos, and do better offensive rebounding.

Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - 81alum - 01-09-2013

(01-09-2013, 03:12 AM)MT link Wrote:You might think that we must have had good defense, right.  Not really, at least not for us. Our record number of fouls gave them our season high for FTA and FT.  Their rebounding domination led to a season high 22 second-chance points.  They tied our opponent's season high with 6 FBP.  I don't think they can blame their 10% 3PT% on our strong defense at the 3pt line.  But their offense in general was near average against us in many categories.

MT, you are right that we could have played much better defense.  I thought about our poor rebounding as I typed my remarks about our D last night.  Even so, C.al is the 21st best offensive team nationally (not allowing for strength of schedule) averaging 74 points a game and we held them to 21 points under their average.  That is not disastrous.  And Stanford overall is having its best defensive season in six years--maybe longer, I did not check.

Whatever we can do to improve our D would be welcome, but I think Tara's priorities have to center on getting our offense more consistently in sync.  It is the worst offense we have had in many years.  What I do not know is whether this is due mostly to the loss of Nneka, whether it is because Tara installed two new offensive schemes that did not "take", or whether our players are simply not as talented on offense as we thought they would be.  I'm hoping it is the second and that the players will continue to learn and improve in the new schemes.

Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - 76lsjumb - 01-09-2013

(01-09-2013, 10:21 AM)81alum link Wrote:Whatever we can do to improve our D would be welcome, but I think Tara's priorities have to center on getting our offense more consistently in sync.  It is the worst offense we have had in many years.  What I do not know is whether this is due mostly to the loss of Nneka, whether it is because Tara installed two new offensive schemes that did not "take", or whether our players are simply not as talented on offense as we thought they would be.  I'm hoping it is the second and that the players will continue to learn and improve in the new schemes.

I'm worried that we simply don't have the necessary point guard capabilities.  So far this season, for both the men and the women, our point guard play has been much closer to the Jarrett Mann end of the spectrum than to the Brevin Knight end.  The really good point guards see the whole court, know when there is going to be a numbers advantange on the break, see when teammates are about to get open, and get the pass to them right when it needs to be there so they get a clean, open shot.  The not-quite-so-really-good point guards have to spend a little too much attention on not getting the ball picked, are a little too tentative in throwing the pass, and always seem to get the ball to an open teammate a split second too late, so the defense has had an opportunity to adjust and take away the open shot.  Last night [and for much of this season], it seemed like Amber was in the latter category, not the former.  By contrast, watching the ND/UConn game, Skylar Diggins is clearly in the former.

I hope she can develop and get more comfortable, but this type of talent has always seemed to me to be somewhat instinctual -- players either seem to have it when they arrive...or they don't.  The "triangle" offense doesn't require as much of this type of talent from the point guard to be successful, but, of course, we don't really have the right talent mix this year to run a consistently dominant triangle.

One other question I had last night:  Why in the world put Bonnie Samuelson in and then NOT run some offensive set guaranteed to get her an open look at a 3 fairly early on?

Finally, it seems to me that somewhere on the list of concerns ought to be the fact that [I'm pretty sure] we got exactly 1 point from the bench last night.  We may be able to get away with that this early in the season, but things can get pretty bleak at the end.  Winning the Rose Bowl with a 20-14 score is one thing, but trying to win basketball games with a score in that range will be quite a feat...

Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - M T - 01-09-2013

(01-09-2013, 12:47 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:The not-quite-so-really-good point guards have to spend a little too much attention on not getting the ball picked, are a little too tentative in throwing the pass, and always seem to get the ball to an open teammate a split second too late, so the defense has had an opportunity to adjust and take away the open shot. 
For years I've felt that the team always seemed like they had practiced against practice opponents who were much slower than practice teammates, where they can get away with the weak pass, without the defensive player either reaching out and deflecting it or hustling to the ball first.  I wonder if it might be useful to put (in turn) each starting guard to scrimmage against the other starters, if that isn't done already.

(01-09-2013, 12:47 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:One other question I had last night:  Why in the world put Bonnie Samuelson in and then NOT run some offensive set guaranteed to get her an open look at a 3 fairly early on?
Does it seem to you that Stanford is running fewer set plays than usual?  (But to be fair, I think Bonnie does usually get a decent look soon after getting into the game.  Whether she hits it is another issue.)    For years I've felt that our 3PT% falls during the year.  It isn't clear whether it is the level of competition (or their adaption to our 3PT plays), or whether it is that players practice 3s all summer long and come to school with a good stroke, but then can't spend as much time on it during the season.

(01-09-2013, 12:47 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:We may be able to get away with that this early in the season, but things can get pretty bleak at the end.  Winning the Rose Bowl with a 20-14 score is one thing, but trying to win basketball games with a score in that range will be quite a feat...
Point taken about it being bleak at the end of the season. (See attached image)

[attachment deleted by admin]

Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - WAcard - 01-10-2013

Some good points. I agree about Amber I do not think she is a pass first point guard and tends to have to be wary of the defender so subsequently does not see the open player when they should be getting the ball.

Also in parts our defense and ball movement was very good, particularly in the second half when we made our run and Cal could not respond, that's where we won the game.

Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - Viking_Guy - 01-10-2013

Sorry, have been sick, but a couple of more additions:

(1) One thing I loved seeing - the press break that led to Joslyn's transition bucket.  IIRC, Amber inbounded to Chiney, who threw over the top to Ruef at midcourt, then a pass without a dribble from there to Toni in the corner, who hit a cutting Tinkle at the basket.  May have been the first time I've seen us really punish a press all year.

(2) Point of attack defense - much harder hedges by Jos and Chiney, especially at the top of the key.  Especially important given Kal's lack of a step-back shooter option - stop the drive first should be the order of the day against them again on Sunday.

(3) On offensive rebounding - the lack of anyone but Chiney under the basket was very noticeable on our offensive boards, but I think that may have been a bit strategic, with everyone else retreating to deny the Bares a transition opportunity.  The only transition bucket I can remember from them all game is the steal and layup right before halftime.

(4) Defensive rebounding: ugh.  Okay, they're a great rebounding team, but when their best offensive plan is huck it up and let the posts try to rebound, Stanford needs to put in a bit more effort.  Seemed to me their plan was to drop a perimeter player in to put an initial bodycheck on Chiney, leaving their two posts relatively free.  Was surprised not to see any of Tess Picknell, but I guess she isn't enough of an offensive threat yet for a team whose primary weakness is offensive.

(5) Still shocked that Kal didn't zone us, or drop off more, as Stanford did with Bonnie; Eliza Pierre got awfully lonely out there in the corner, as Bonnie had at least one foot in the paint most of the time she was "guarding" her.  Reminded me of Stanford against ASU in the Pac-10 tourney a few years back, when Kelley Suminski played a one-woman zone for a large part of the game against the Devils.

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - 81alum - 01-11-2013

A couple of you have speculated a bit about what C.al should try in round 2.  I'm equally interested in what you think Tara should try in round 2.  Both coaches have had much more time to prepare for round 2 than they had for round 1--when they were playing their 3rd games in 5 days.  Now they have the tape of the first game and another 5 days to make adjustments.

What will they do?

Here is an uncomfortable thought.  If C.al had simply made its season average for 3 point shots--a measly 30%--they would have scored an additional 12 points and won.  Then again, if we had also made our average for threes, then they would not have won.  It is discomfitting to realize that the game could easily have come down to who can hit open three point shots.  In round 1 the answer was:  no one.  If a C.al player gets hot in round 2 then we will have to play much better than we did last time.

Re: WBB: Stanford 62 kal 53 - CompSci87 - 01-11-2013

I thought generally we did a good job of contesting 3-point opportunities by Kal's better shooters (e.g., Clarendon), while daring their poorer shooters (e.g., Pierre) to let fly. So Kal's low 3-point percentage wasn't just them happening to have a cold night.

On the flip side, my impression was that Kal was guarding the 3-point line against our better 3-point shooters as well. Bonnie in particular was blanketed when outside the line.