WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - 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, UCLA 57 Final (/thread-4846.html)

---

WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - M T - 02-17-2013

It seems a turnover fest.  I saw 4 TO in the first minute.  And more later, but gametracker only shows 2 on each team.
KZSU is having tech. difficulties & not yet broadcasting.
Of the first 11pts, 7 pts Chiney, 4 pts Mikaela
Lots of defensive pressure by UCLA on the shots & in half court
Lots of rebounds by UCLA.
At 7:58  8 TO by UCLA, 4 TO by Stanford (officially)
  Chiney 9pts
At 7:30, picks left Amber on big player. Jos came over to take that player. Amber strolled over to pick up her player (with ball), which caused Chiney to start to chase that open player down & get out of position.  Should have hustled.
5:30 Ruef out with 2 fouls, Tess in.
2:43  Some long 3s by UCLA.    KZSU now online.
1:53  They called a major foul on Tess because her opponent's head was ABOVE Tess's foot and got hit by Tess's elbow.
1:16 Another WEAK pass by Amber results in a TO
0:53 Questionable foul on Sara, followed by questionable foul on them
0:32 3 by Bonnie! up 5
0:21 Bogus travel call on UCLA
Half: 30-25  FG%: 39-37  3PT% 25-50, FT% 80-60, Reb 11OR+9DR - 9+9, TO 8-12
  Chiney 12pts, 5Reb, 3Blk, 1 foul
  Mikaela: 4pts, 5Reb, 2 fouls
  5 other scorers
  UCLA  7 scorers: sub Korver (#02) 6 points (2/2 3ptrs)
----
15:31  Amber ignores her player completely (doesn't look at her for 7 seconds), who sits unguarded under the basket for an easy layup
14:25 Amber does it again.  She leaves her player alone & tries to double their big player, so her opponent is unguarded in the middle of the lane.  However, we wind up with the ball.
11:38  We've finally gotten more than a 10pt lead, but it doesn't feel safe.  We aren't in control at either end of the court.
9:56  A little more room, but still not in control.  Sara pays back a questionable call on her with her first points, a three.  Jos is near a double-double.  Chiney may miss as she only has 6 rebounds.
8:59  52-40  It has tightened up a little.  Bogus travel call on Amber, when it really was just an out-of-bounds.  She tried to go into no-man's land and got lost.  When Ruef went down at the D-end, she slid on a towel, which was dangerous.
4:40  UCLA got a breakaway when both our guards failed to hustle.
2:25  Chiney's been doing more of the dribbling recently.  I'm ok with that when we need to break the press and in the drive to the basket from inside the foul line, but it isn't pretty.
1:18  Chiney's only at 7 rebounds.

Good FT shooting at the end.  Mikaela has the only double-double.  Chiney 26pts but only 7 rebounds (in the 2nd half she was rarely under either basket).
Not a pretty win, but not a lucky win either.  We kept the lead at a respectable distance.  It is good to face this, so now the team can learn from their mistakes here (like Jasmine's not doing a quick throw-in before the full court defense can get back).
Far too many turnovers.

We miss Toni!

I have to keep telling myself that Amber is just a sophomore, and that she's bound to improve.  I'm just not certain that she will improve her effort.

Representative Kodak moment of the game:  4 UCLA players fighting 1 Stanford player for the rebound under the UCLA basket.  (Fortunately, we got it out & to a breaking Chiney.)

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 30, UCLA 25 Half - Viking_Guy - 02-17-2013

MT--

UCLA is playing defense against stationary players by bodying up.  As you said, the defender on Tess (I think it was Brewer), put her chin essentially on Tess' shoulder and of course got clipped when Picknell tried to swing the ball up and over.  There was an additional bad offensive foul called on Ruef early on, when she was being guarded by either Limberger or Korver, a much smaller player.  She took her down on the post and spread her arms to receive the ball.  The defender essentially ran herself into Ruef's outstretched arms and collapsed theatrically backwards.  Tweet, offensive foul.  Mikaela wasn't swinging her arms or moving much at all.

And the refs up until the Picknell "flagrant" were definitely letting both teams hack without much consequence (at that point I think they had called a total of 8 fouls on both teams, with only about 2 minutes left in the half).  Which definitely benefits UCLA; they're being allowed to really hammer the post players.

One problem I saw was that for a while Stanford went with 4 "bigs" (Ruef, Tinkle, Chiney, and Greenfield) and Amber against a smaller and much faster Bruins side, and had lots of problems initiating the offense against ball pressure; UCLA is not afraid of the drive by any of those players, so gets up on the body to deny easy passes.

VG

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - 81alum - 02-17-2013

Since I don’t get ESPNU, I biked down to the Old Pro and watched the game with two other Stanford fans.  The place was fairly quiet.

The game seemed like a defensive slugfest, with Stanford making just under 40% of its shots.  Chiney made some wonderful plays, but overall was just 10-20 and missed her double double with only 7 rebounds.  She did have 5 blocks, so her defensive contributions were very important.  When we were on offense, UCLA usually had someone in front of her and behind her and attempted to deny the entry pass.  Even so she scored 26 points, but not very efficiently, and it threw our offense out of whack for stretches.

Our three point shooting continues for the second year to be sub-par, despite having many fine practice shooters.  Bonnie was 2/7 and overall in this game we were 4/19.  To remind us of what great three point shooting is like, keep in mind that Mosqueda-Lewis is currently 74/150 and Kelly Faris is 33/78.  So far this year Joslyn is our best shooter at 28/80 with Taylor and Bonnie a bit behind that.

Reuf had the only double-double today, with 10 points and 10 rebounds.  Better yet, she was 4/4 from the free throw line.  That last stat is very auspicious given her earlier free throw woes.

Joslyn was 5/7 in close and 0/3 from three, with 6 O-boards.  On two occasions she was in exactly the right position to collect Chiney’s miss and put it back.  She may have gone cold from three lately, but she is improving her inside play and giving us more of what we need to give us an alternative to Chiney.

Sara James started today but got just 15 minutes.  She has not been scoring points lately while Ruef has, which seems to have convinced Tara to play 4 bigs.  As VG pointed out, this was problematic at times for dealing with UCLA’s speedy defense. 

Amber played well at times–she had 5 assists but also 5 turnovers–not all of which were excusable.  She was only 1/6 shooting, but she was excellent at the free throw line, which we needed down the stretch (6/7).  Jasmine gave her some relief and for a couple of minutes we had both of them on the floor.  But Jasmine did run into trouble a couple of times against the quick defense.

Tess came into the game in the first half–perhaps the most significant minutes in her career so far.  She scored on her only shot and it looked as if she might be becoming more game-comfortable.  Then she was called for a highly questionable flagrant foul and she left, not to return.

Looking at the stat sheet: on the good side, it is a win, and I am pleased that there were multiple contributors–we needed more than just Chiney today.  But given how easily C.al destroyed UCLA on Friday, it is worrisome that we had to bludgeon our way to a hard-fought victory.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - Yellowlab - 02-17-2013

We can find plenty to find fault with in this game, but it still constitutes a quality road win.  I wonder how Kal hammered them on Friday night, because UCLA is a good team. 

Amber continues to confound me, but I think the key learning going forward is that it is time to Raise the Reuf!

Her confidence appears to be peaking at the perfect time.  It won't be enough, if Toni cannot play, but it is exactly what I'd hoped to see from Reuf coming into this season.  Reuf's passing, defense and rebounding has been pretty well established by this point.  Now, she's adding scoring into the mix. 

Breaking news...Chiney didn't get a double double.  Yank her scholarship!
 

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - M T - 02-17-2013

Cal beat U.SC 72-64, so it looks like no change at the top.  U.SC made it a game at the end.
Rashonda Gray fouled out on a swinging elbow technical foul, where the opponent was called for a common foul.

I'm not concerned that we  won by "only" 11, when C.al won by 28.  Against U.SC, we won by 24 and C.al struggled to win by 8.  Their struggles (4pt at 1:34, 5pt at 0:40) were greater than ours (9pt at 0:54)


It is frustrating to me to have the PAC-12 announcers talk up Griner and ignore Chiney.  At 14:12 in the 2nd half, Mary Murphy mentions only Griner as one of the (current) great players.    Mary has repeatedly made that case, so it is no surprise if the rest of the country has no respect for Chiney.  I'm convinced that if we play Baylor and beat them again, that Mary, et al, will still say that Griner is the greatest player around.  The only way that this might change is if we play them in the NC & beat them, with Chiney scoring 10+ points more than Griner.  If we beat them in the semis, people will still say Griner's the best.  If Griner's presence influences the game so much, then why are they allowing a higher opponent's FG% than either Stanford or UConn? 

Yes, I know I'm saying this the day before the UConn-Baylor game and I may have to eat my words.  I am willing to say I expect UConn to win, probably easily.  I may go to watch it at Old Pro.    I don't see Stanford being voted ahead of either, no matter what the result.  I guess if UConn wins by 26 points, then some might decide that Stanford should be in front of Baylor since we beat them head-to-head. 

By the way, remember that Utah's Wicijowski went down with a knee injury at Stanford.  She missed three games, but is back playing again.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - meos - 02-17-2013

As a two game set, the team showed good progress again this weekend in lessons learned since December. Team members are making plays and taking shots now that they wouldn't earlier (it was all Chiney all the time then). Even against some tougher competition this weekend, they were still mostly aggressively decisive.
The open 3 taken often leads to something else good, even if missed. But trying to jam everything to Chiney earlier in the season led to a stagnant offense and more turnovers.

I'm happy to see more of the team just playing with purpose. This is a team that will just have to play thru whatever comes. It may not always look pretty like some other Stanford teams. I like that they are now grinding it out, no matter how it looks or what it takes. More than some other teams, everyone's contribution counts in the final result.  So comical to hear some weeks back a player say 11 points scored is to many. NO IT ISN'T. If they leave you open and you can score 30, put the ball in the basket and score 30.

Playing at Stanford gives players a national stage upon which to be noticed. I would not have projected Jeanette Pohlen into the WNBA in her first two years. Pohlen played well over those years, but it was a couple major moments that showcased her professional potential: 4 seconds to dribble full length of the court to score and scoring 31 on Uconn (performing better than Nneka and Maya that night).
[No, you don't force up shots to achieve that, but if it comes your way and you are "ON" that night, don't run from the moment either. Be a basketball player first, with some role emphasis as second. Make the plays that help your team (I'm seeing more of that)]

A lot of the Stan players still have more in them than they are bringing to the court. Just look at shoot-around as one example. Many perimeter shooters hardly ever miss. But in the game, more misses (figure it out and get more consistent in games).
More rebounds to get, getting stronger, working on skills (ball handling, footwork, ...). Part of the fun is that there is always more to do get better -- if you want the challenge. The team has made very respectable progress, and needs to continue to work on it and refine it.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - M T - 02-17-2013

[The comment by Mary Murphy was in the C.al-U.SC game.  That is on the PAC-12 channel, with PAC-12 announcers.  The Stanford game was only on ESPNU.  When I could, I preferred to listen to almost anyone other than Ros.  I don't know whether it is her tone or the non-stop nature of her commentary but it bothers me.  Obviously, that's a personal preference and not intended to be a reflection on her ability as an announcer.  By the way, I notice that announcers that were post players always say how good the post players are, and guards say how good the guards are.  I see the same thing in football.  It's human nature, I guess.]

When I do my stats, I use the Final Stats, updated when it isn't consistent (typical is missing substitutions, but sometimes they show 3 subbed out, 2 subbed in; at least once this year, they've given baskets to the wrong team).  I went back to look at the start of today's game.  It starts off with a block on either side, but then they miss a steal by Sara (19:27) and call it a team offensive rebound (that included 2 passes by the opponent and the ball passing half court!)  Looking further, at 16:46, Chiney is blocked and the ball is knocked out to Sara, who passes it to Amber.  Official stats: Off. rebound by Amber.  The next offensive rebound is knocked out to Amber, who is properly credited with it.  Shortly after that, Mikaela tips a pass, off Sara's hands and Chiney's, and it rolls away, where Amber picks it up, and gets the credit for a steal (as it should be, but Mikaela started it).

I noticed a bothersome technical glitch.  At the half, the game time clock on the TV showed 0.3 seconds left when the red lights on the backboard came on.  I thought the TV clock was electronically tied to the scoreboard clock.  If it is, the early firing of the red lights may cause an official to make an erroneous call.  But, if you look a little earlier at when Bonnie shoots & misses, the TV clock was 0.2 to 0.3 seconds off the scoreboard clock.  So, it appears to be a delay from the scoreboard to the TV clock.  (IMO, Tara should have requested more time to be put back on the clock when the tie-ball was called.  It might have made the difference.)

From the stats, such as they are,
This was our season low (20) in defensive rebounds (avg 29).  We were a bit low in defensive rebounding percentage (63% vs avg 70%), but it boils down to not many chances.  They kept their 3pt shooting low (only 8 attempts) and hit 46% of their 2PT shots (4th best of the season).  Offensive rebounds were good at 49%. 

Our 21% for 3PT% was low, and even our 49% for 2PT shots was a bit low.  While we made our average number of attempted shots, we moved 4 of them to 3ptrs rather than 2ptrs, which accounted for our lower made FG and FG%.  Our assists/FG was better at 61% (avg 51%).  (I wish I could account for putback attempts and remove them from that denominator.)  Our 15 TO was a bit above our average of 12, but our season best 11 steals helped push them to a season-most 21 TO.  However, UCLA still got more points (19) off the Stanford TO than Stanford got (15).

UCLA's 18 assists tied for the most against us this year, and accounted for 75% of their FG.  As happens in a game that is somewhat close, the losing team fouled a lot down the stretch, giving them a season high 8 more fouls than us, and a resulting season-high 12 more made FTs, one more than the total difference.  Stanford's 18 made FTs was second high for the season, and the 90% FT% was also second high.  I think this was a good sign for any future close games where we are leading.  Another good sign was that we had only 1 player with even 3 fouls.

FYI, while we got 28 points in the paint and they got only 24, they were above the average and we were below our average.

As for efficiency while on the floor, I was surprised by the numbers:

Remember, with my 5-minute limit, the final column isn't valid for Chiney, Jos, Amber, or Tess.  But for the rest, we did much better when Bonnie was on the floor than when she wasn't.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - 81alum - 02-17-2013

I agree in large part with Soem's optimism.

Tara commented last week that she was impressed with how much this team was learning--she was just a bit wistful that the season was not longer so they could continue to make progress. 

Since the Connecticut loss I think there have been several very positive developments and one negative one.

The negative development is the potential loss of Toni.

The positive developments are the offensive emergence of Ruef, the better inside play of Jos, the additional minutes from Jasmine, and the hustle of Sara.

To beat Cal in the Pac 12 tourney, and to make it to the final 4 in March, I think we will need more improvements.  We are not good enough yet to assure ourselves of those goals.  We need at least 2-3 of these things to happen:

Bonnie or Taylor could start becoming more consistent from three point range.
Toni could get healthy.
Jasmine could become more of an offensive threat.
Sara could become a more consistent offensive threat.
Tess could become reliable enough to give us a good 10 minutes of strong defense a game.  Can she become good enough to push another big out of the paint?
Ruef could figure out how to defend as well as she has been without picking up so many fouls.
Chiney could start to hit mid range jumpers.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - M T - 02-17-2013

Certainly I agree with the optimism.  Every team should be improving if they stay healthy.  At least Stanford has not had any significant injuries (knock, knock).  I think we're on track to be quite good next year, if Ruef can come back to be the second big. (I think Tess will still not be there.  I did like her running the court to get her basket today.)  But, our opponents will also improve from this year.

As for recent improvements, I would add Bonnie's play as something that is paying dividends.

I will add some other improvements we can wish for...

• The offense can feed the ball in to the bigs with more regularity and fewer turnovers.  This may involve dribble drives to loosen up the defense.  If Chiney is double teamed, someone should be open that can shoot, or a dribbler may find a lane.  If Jos is an alternative down low, that would be ideal.  Her shooting from 3pt land should be an occasional boost, not a curse.  Or maybe Ruef can play down low and free Jos to roam more.
  
• We can get better rebounding against tough teams.  The guards MUST take responsibility for defensive coverage and let the bigger players try for offensive rebounds rather than worrying about defense.  Our three-point misses need to be offensive weapons for us.  Everyone on the court should block out first, and not be a spectator.
  
• While our guards' ball handling is not a strong point, we can punish teams for trying to use a full court press against us.  Set up timing plays so after Chiney helps to bring the ball down, we swing it to a 3pt shooter who shoots (or passes) just as Chiney & Jos arrive at the low post area
  

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - CompSci87 - 02-17-2013

(02-17-2013, 07:15 PM)soem link Wrote:So comical to hear some weeks back a player say 11 points scored is to many. NO IT ISN'T. If they leave you open and you can score 30, put the ball in the basket and score 30.

That was Ruef, and she was certainly joking, to loosen things up when she got to be one of the players at the post-game press conference after getting the first double-double of her career. She also was quoted as saying "The coaches have been telling me to be confident in my moves. I didn't know I had any moves!" I'm sure in reality she works hard on post moves in every practice, and is just as pleased about scoring points as everyone who's ever played basketball. Just her goofy sense of humor.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - WAcard - 02-18-2013

Hey, if we can win with those crappy refs, I feel pretty good right now. The Blond ref was absolutely horrible. Great job to Ruef and Chiney and her turn around in free throw shooting WOW.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - Yellowlab - 02-18-2013

(02-17-2013, 05:55 PM)MT link Wrote:By the way, remember that Utah's Wicijowski went down with a knee injury at Stanford.  She missed three games, but is back playing again.

Thanks for mentioning this.  I did read that Duke's Gray dislocated her right kneecap and will be lost for the rest of the regular season.  Although it's not the dreaded ACL injury it still is a tough break for a team that was playing well.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - 81alum - 02-18-2013

The loss of Gray is so disappointing for a team that I predict we will have to beat. 

It is possible, I suppose, that we could miss Duke on the way to the final four.  But don't you think that the selection committee will figure out a way for the 4 and 5 teams--who have not met before--to play each other like last year?  A match up with Notre Dame or Baylor of UConn seems unlikely before the semis, if we get there.  But Duke....

As for yesterday's officiating, it was extraordinarily bad.  Chiney rarely made a shot without being forcibly shoved or hacked.  I know Tara thinks that style of play is bad for WBB and bad for Stanford, but we seem to be able to play hack ball and rugby style and win against somewhat inferior teams.  But to let C.al play that way without calling it closer could be fatal to our chances.  If we have the rubber game against C.al in the Pac12 tourney it could easily come down to the style of officiating. 

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - meos - 02-18-2013

On the quote of me: comical/humorous - I agree. Both the identity and the apparent player sarcasm were granted as fairly transparent for this audience.
The irony that kept me smiling was that despite the humor there was/is a truth at its heart. Too many players were sitting back and letting Chiney try to do it all, and that doesn't work against the toughest teams (before that, there was all Jayne and all Nneka .. all the time). I left my statement somewhat generic as an example that applies to many players. So it was not about one statement, but several and many observations of play needing improvement.
But there has been progress;  almost gone are the 6-inch bounce passes to Chiney that would be better taken by the player as their own shot.
To be clear, part of the progress is getting out of older habits imposed on the players -- the coaches are now encouraging and pushing that in a much bigger way this year. There is more freedom to play their games.
Pederson - as another example, had the talent to score 30 many times over; and yet, I don't recall that she ever did at Stanford. Doing just enough to win against weaker teams doesn't prepare you individually or as a team to compete well against the tougher teams near season's end. [yes, a wonderful player that contributed in many other ways; but along the dimension of aggressive decisive scoring -- there was (and maybe still is) opportunity for significant growth.]

On Refs: hard to understand the rule application. Tess gets a flagrant, but kal in a more serious contact play only get a technical (after monitor review), and the elbowed player is called for the foul.

On Gray: yes, sad. some expect to find her back during NCAA tourney time.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - M T - 02-18-2013

(02-18-2013, 04:23 PM)soem link Wrote:On Refs: hard to understand the rule application. Tess gets a flagrant, but kal in a more serious contact play only get a technical (after monitor review), and the elbowed player is called for the foul.

In the C.al game, a personal foul was called on the victim of the elbow, but before the elbow-head contact was made.  Thus the contact was when the ball was NOT in play.  As a result, it was a contact dead ball technical foul rather than a flagrant 1 personal foul.  (In one of the PAC-12 men's games this weekend, a flagrant 2 foul was called (for intentional elbow to the back of the head) and thus the player was ejected.)  The rule for the contact dead ball technical foul is two free throws plus possession (in case someone was wondering why it happened that way.)


4-29.2c  A flagrant 1 personal foul shall be a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but not based
solely on the severity of the act.

I had almost commented twice recently that we had not been seriously complaining about the officials.

What the official is apparently calling in the UConn-Baylor game is that the player takes the ball in both hands before the foot that is intended to be the pivot foot leaves the ground.  So you easily see the Left - Right - Left -Shoot sequence, but it is harder to see that the right foot was still down when the ball was grabbed in both hands before the first Left foot hits the ground.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - 81alum - 02-18-2013

The first of the two fouls where Griner threw Dolson to the floor looked really, really ugly.  Dolson's head bounced on the hardwood.  I was shocked to see her back in the game and half expected to see her with a helmet.  Thank goodness she wasn't hurt.  The second time Griner threw Dolson to the floor it looked a bit more accidental.  That was reaching the point where Rugby was no longer a metaphor and was reality. 

The Griner fouls might have been called correctly--I don't pretend to know. 

But is there a difference of opinion about how the refs should call WBB games, or in games like ours are we just witnessing bad officiating?  I'd prefer to see the game called tightly, with much less contact, even at the expense of defense.  I think those games are simply more aesthetic to watch and make for more fluidity and rhythm, more attractive plays.  But are there those who want WBB to be more physical and rough?  I guess I am wondering if what I think of as bad officiating is actually favored by some, or whether it is pure incompetence.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 68, UCLA 57 Final - WAcard - 02-18-2013

Refs are lazy, the fouling occurred way before the throw to the ground, if the refs called the calls early in the game it would put a stop to all the rugby style of play which uglies up the game. They need to just do there job, plain and simple. Woukdn't it be great if they were docked for missing obvious calls, that would make them pay attention earlier!!

---