The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 66 Davis 48 - 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 66 Davis 48 (/thread-6107.html)


WBB: Stanford 66 Davis 48 - 81alum - 11-17-2013

Flow of the game

This game Tara started Erica McCall in place of Johnson.  Erica played in front of her father who coaches Bakersfield.  The offense started slowly, but our defense held up reasonably well against the famous Princeton offense that Davis plays.  By 10 minutes into the game we finally got a 10 point lead (20-10) when Bonnie made a three point jumper.  The combinations of players kept churning and we had crawled out to a 34-20 halftime lead.  In the second half we made very slow progress upwards but we certainly were no offensive juggernaut, finishing with an 18 point win.  To put that in perspective, Connecticut beat us by that much.

But I think the point tally is the wrong way to think about this game.  It was obvious, both from the substitutions and the pre and post game talks with the coaches, that this game was a virtual pre-season affair to help Tara judge talent and player combinations.  We go on the road for 4 difficult games in a row--first to Texas and then on to the tournament in Puerta Vallarta with Purdue, Florida Gulf Coast, and South Dakota State.  All 4 are difficult in their own way, and winning all four with a team that is still embryonic in development will be a challenge.

Statistically, what stands out is Chiney with 28 points and 15 rebounds.  I almost felt like Tara told her to go win the game by herself so that she could experiment with the other four positions.  Our three point shooting was surprisingly poor--18%.  We cut down on turnovers--just 11.  We shot a poor 39% for the game.  And Karlie had more assists (6) than Amber (4), with a team total 17.

What did we learn from this game?

In the Chalk talk we heard from Tempe for the first time, who seems personable--even charismatic.  She noted that Tara is not varying much from the triangle, and this puts some demands on the new players who must learn it.  After the game Tara echoed the problem when she noted that we "are not running many plays."  The playbook is just too complex for most frosh to master, so this implies they have enough to learn just adjusting to the basic triangle for now.

What we learned from the game itself is that Karlie Samuelson is ready to play at the college level.  She was the featured player tonight, even though she did not start.  What the last game did for Lili, Davis did for Karlie.  She played 33 minutes and after the game Tara singled her out for playing defense "like a senior."  She was assigned to one of Davis's best scorers and did a creditable job limiting her.  On offense, she made a couple of treys, a couple of free throws, and had 6 assists to just 1 turnover and only 1 foul.  Given how much stock Tara puts in playing good defense, Karlie is going to contend for minutes.  I did notice that the quality of her shot wore down a bit as the game went on and she worked hard on defense.  She may need a bit more conditioning to keep the calves springy enough to launch her trademark shot after a vigorous spell on defense.  One odd thing about Karlie.  She fell to the floor at least five times today--but sprung back up each time, seemingly unhurt.  Still, she probably needs to play just a tad bit more in control to avoid getting hurt.

So what we have is an embarrassment of riches at guard--the position that before the season began we thought might be our weak link.

The new weak link, said Tara, is the 3 position.  She said in the off season they switched Erica Payne to the three, but both she and Taylor have been injured.  Kailee has been learning two positions--the 3 and the 4, and Karlie has been playing the 2 and the 3.  But we have no one who is yet very comfortable with the 3 other than Bonnie, who did get 15 minutes and was 1/4 from three point range.

Now, I promised an answer to the tempest on this board about Kailee's and Erica's height.  Well, we got an easy comparison.  The two of them came out for the after-the-game talk and it was clear that the top of Erica's head came to about Kailee's eye level or so.  That is giving away 2-3 inches.  Wow.  So much for the fact that every recruiter and the official Stanford roster list them both as 6'3".  I thought that Erica looked to be the same height as Bonnie, who is listed as (what else) 6'3", and a little shorter than Chiney who is listed as 6'4".  What do we conclude?  I think Erica really is 6'2" or 6'3", but Kailee is much taller than her listed height.  Kailee looked taller than Chiney and shorter than Tess--so go figure.  Is she 6'4"?

I watched the defensive play of Erica and Kailee in particular.  Both of them looked active with Erica again seeming more athletic and bouncing around on her toes, and Kailee moving side to side more smoothly and more upright.  But both of them got bypassed more than once and each of them committed fouls as the player they were guarding cut around them to the basket.  Erica wound up with only the 1 foul, but Kailee with 3.  Kailee got a nice block, though.  As Tara said after the game, these kids are used to being the biggest kids on the court, and they are finding out it is more difficult at this level.  It seems to me that it is proving harder for the frosh bigs to adjust to college defense than for the frosh guards.

I also remain a bit concerned about the production of any of the "bigs" not named Chiney.  Ruef missed a number of point blank shots (2-4) and was only 4/10 on free throws.  Tara said after the game that if people wanted to play, they had to make free throws.  I took that to mean that Ruef's spot could be endangered if she doesn't start becoming productive.  But Erica was only 1/5 field goal attempts but at least she made 3/4 free throws and looked smooth doing it.  Kailee only took 1 shot and missed it. 

Summary

The guard slots are shaping up well, and Chiney is an anchor.  Both the "3" and the "4" remain major question marks and we must hope for our frosh to quickly develop and for injured players to return to fill in these pieces of the puzzle.  Offensively the team is disjointed in part because it is not working on the playbook so much as on the basic adjustment of teaching the triangle to the frosh.  While they know this stuff in practice, Tara says that is quite different from being able to execute it on the court.  Finally, our perimeter defense is better than expected and our interior defense is worse than expected, at this point in the season.




Re: WBB: Stanford 66 Davis 48 - WAcard - 11-17-2013

Of course the 3 is the issue is our 3s have been injured, even Bonnie just came back and isn't in game shape yet but knows the offense, draws out the defense and gets Chiney the ball. brobdingnagian shout out to Karlie.

But c'mon who else liked Kailee at the 4, she looks much more comfortable and passed well from there, put her where she can be successfully plus she can help with keeping the double off of Chiney. Chiney is scoring at will and missed some bunnies but it is when the D has to guard out.

If Chiney played every game without a double she is hands down, no argument player of the year, there is no one even close.