The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 64 U.SC 59 - 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 64 U.SC 59 (/thread-6766.html)


WBB: Stanford 64 U.SC 59 - 81alum - 02-21-2014

Overview:
We overcame the worst start of the season and held U.SC to 22 points in the second half to capture this game.  An incredibly stressful game to watch, but the good news is that we corrected our defensive mistakes in time to save this game, and avoided another result like at Washington.

At the half Stanford 30 U.SC 37
A fairly comprehensive melt-down surpassing even Washington (to this point).  We were down 13-32 14 minutes into the game, and our play did not seem to inspire much hope that things could improve.  Lili was announced as having an ankle injury and had her foot in a boot, and Tara started Karlie in her place.  U.SC clamped down on defense around Chiney and our three point shooting went cold.  Meanwhile, U.SC--not normally a hot three point shooting team--started 4/4 from three point range and seemed to hit almost everything else they shot too.  They were above 60% shooting at one point.  Chiney and Amber picked up 2 fouls each, and by the end of the half we were playing without 3 of our normal starters.  Chiney was not her usual self, either, going just 4/10.  Part of that was tough defense.

Despite the disastrous start, our defense finally began to take hold over the last five minutes, and we went on a 9-0 run to close out the half only 7 points down.  U.SC out rebounded us in the half by 2, we had 9 turnovers--often forced ones--our shooting finally improved a little to 44%.  But the most hopeful sign was the defense at the end.  That must be sustained, and Amber is going to have to slash repeatedly to the basket in the second half if we are going to pull this one out of the dumpster.  Bri Roberson played for significant time with Amber out, and she did go 2/2.  She is another hopeful sign. 

The start of the second half will be crucial.

Second half
It is clear that our defensive intensity has ramped up significantly, and U.SC is having trouble running its offense and getting good looks.  At the same time, they have been less able to stay with Chiney.  Amber has had some nice feeds and dishes inside to our star, Bri has been playing much of the half and has defended well, and Bonnie has been getting assists! 

We took the lead for the first time about halfway through the second half.  In that stretch Chiney made four straight baskets--two layups and two short jumpers.  Ruef also hit a couple in the stretch, and we clung to a single digit lead the rest of the way.  U.SC turned up the press and trapped, and Tara used timeouts to substituted Bonnie on offense for quicker defenders, and Bonnie made 4 free throws to seal the game.  She wound up 8/8 from the line--critical.

Performances
Chiney started slow but finished strong, with 27 points on 12/24 shooting.  She was held to 7 rebounds.

Bonnie was a heroine today, showing that her game is diversifying.  She scored on two baskets, but her 8 free throws were critical.  Her defense was solid, too, and she had 4 very nice assists.

Amber did just enough today.  She scored 8 points and had 5 assist to go with 4 turnovers--I think the turnovers were mostly in the first half during the bad stretch.  She got 3 steals.  She was defending Ariya Crook much of the night and picked up 4 fouls doing it--not all of which seemed entirely legit.  Crook scored 24.

Bri Roberson had a very solid game.  Maybe "solid" is too weak a word for it.  She was 2/2 with a trey, and 2/2 with free throws, 1 assist and 0 turnovers, and very solid defense.  She and Lili are making Tara look like a recruiting genius.  Well, maybe that's because she is!  In any case, having Bri play this well when Lili could not play was vital tonight. 

Parting Thoughts
This was scary, tense, and encouraging--depending on what time in the game we consulted our emotions.  Against Washington our defensive lapses were matched by Washington going on a hot shooting streak that lasted the whole game.  Tonight we fixed our defense and U.SC cooled off by the end of the first half.  It is good to see our team show the resilience required to come-from-behind.  We will need that resilience in the tournaments that are coming up. On the other hand, it is worrisome that our defense does not seem to be consistent, and that we have been starting some games rather poorly of late.

Note:  Announcers noted that Lili might play on Sunday against U.CLA--that had not been determined.

Re: WBB: Stanford 64 U.SC 59 - chimera - 02-21-2014

We fought around screens much better after the terrible start.  I think Chiney is pressing a little.  She has missed shots in the past few games that were automatic earlier in the season.  Players are banged up.  Karlie sat out against UA last weekend with a bum ankle that is probably not 100%.  Now Lili has a bad ankle.  Chiney looks tired or slightly beat up to me. Just not getting in the air for rebounds or for layups like usual.  We may be very glad for the two weeks off between the P-12 tournament and the start of the NCAAs this season.  We played the last 2/3 of the game like a #1 seed maybe but not the first third.  What happened to the team that started so well most games?  Pattern has been reversed recently on the road.  USC has talent but aren't that good.  They can be trouble when Crook gets hot like she did early.  The big comeback was encouraging but a #1 seed shouldn't look as bad as we did to start the game.  The P-12 tournament is beginning to look like even more of a challenge. 

I think the rotation was shortened too quickly.  A few weeks ago seems like Tara lost a bit of patience with freshmen mistakes.  I still think we will need McCall and/or Johnson.  We can't count on a 2 person post "rotation" of Chiney and Ruef.  There is no rotate in that.  Roberson seems to be the hot sub lately, which is nice to see, but that should not preclude using players like Green and James, who have contributed earlier.  A tighter rotation should help execution because the players get used to each other but our execution is still too inconsistent, and since that is the case, I think a 9-10 person rotation is better than the 8, maybe 9 person one Tara usually likes.

Re: WBB: Stanford 64 U.SC 59 - M T - 02-22-2014

I surely didn't like the foul by Ariya Cook on Bonnie with 2:35 left in the game.  Bad sportsmanship.

Of course I was disappointed in the first 14 minutes.  More on that below.  But then when we got up 9 points with 1:37 to go, I thought we would put them out of their misery.  We didn't.  Instead we gave U.SC a good shot to tie the game.  That bothers me -- we need to have more of a killer instinct.


I don't understand why Amber wasn't benched much earlier in the first half.  She almost single-handedly accounted for U.SC's offense in the first half.  She was out of the game only for 3 minutes, but Stanford won those 3 minutes 7-0 and lost the 37 minutes she was in 57-59.  She did play better on defense (and offense, of course) in the second half.  I think our other guards are playing well enough that Amber should be benched when her head isn't in the defense.

I don't catch the name of the former player who did color in the men's game on Thursday, but he commented about players that go for steals often wind up giving up more points than their steals are worth.  I see this style in Amber all the time.  She wants to get rebounds & blocks & steals on double teams, which look great if you only look at those.  But her player is often the one getting free & scoring.

What I saw in Amber's play in the first 11 minutes:
18:41 Off.  Weak pass from Amber to Chiney allows USC to strip the ball.  Mostly Chiney's fault but a snappier pass would have avoided the turnover.
18:24 Def.  Amber goes to sleep when she is at the block and her player is 10+ feet away.  She gets caught amongst the trees and apparently loses sight of her player.  She doesn't even seem to react when her player gets in position to shoot outside the 3pt line.  Amber is 12' away when the ball goes up and isn't even moving toward her player.  Three points from this unguarded shot.
17:37 Def.  USC player walks Amber to the block and Amber goes to sleep again.  She stand uselessly 4' from the basket, all alone, as her player goes out to the guard area.  Amber is 20' off her when she gets the ball.  Another wide open shot for 3.
16:51 Def.  USC player gets the ball 15' outside the 3pt line & Amber is at the 3pt line.  Amber is stymied by what should have been an ineffective screen and watches her player drive for a layup, which was missed.
16:28  Def.  USC on a fast break.  Carlie & Amber are ahead of the break but neither reacts to the stop & pop from the elbow.  Another 2 pts for USC
15:10  Off.  A wide open Amber makes a weak pass to the top of the key where the USC player had time to break out, deflect the pass, and run away with a 2pt layup.
14:08  Def.  Stanford is playing so far off people that it sure looks like a zone.  A cross court pass to a wide-open player.  Amber is closest but she doesn't get close enough to contest the 18' basket.
13:10  Off.  Amber misses a 3pt shot with 29 seconds on the 30 second clock.  I guess she's given up on the 60% shooting of Chiney.
13:04  Def.  Another quick drive by USC.  Amber is in front of the USC girl but can't affect the 11' stop & pop shot again.  Fortunately it misses
12:38  Def.  Amber's player takes her down to the block & leaves her there.  Amber can't get back out on her player who 10 seconds later has an uncontested 3pt basket.

At this point, Amber's play has contributed to 11 of the 21 points that USC has.

9:16  Off.  This is just one example of what I see as a perpetual problem with Amber.  She stands around in positions where the ball handler can't get her the ball.  Chiney wants to pass to her but Amber neither pulls out or drives to the basket.  Chiney passes to Ruef & Amber winds up at the top of the key.  Again, Ruef can't pass to Amber as she hasn't positioned herself so she can be part of the offense.


Re: WBB: Stanford 64 U.SC 59 - 81alum - 02-22-2014

Quote:"The hole wasn't good, but we dug out of it," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said.
VanDerveer and Ogwumike said they have to learn from this game, which was similar to a Feb. 9 loss to Washington in which Stanford was down at halftime.
"We have to look at things, and make a decision to play harder right from the get-go," VanDerveer said. "Our team has to understand being the hunted. We have kind of the bulls-eye on our back."

MT, I think indeed you are right that at times we are sagging so far off of players that it looks like a zone.  From what Kate said at the last chalk-talk, this is not usually done with all five defenders, though.  Three or four may be playing more normally, but 1 or 2 may be sagging way off if their particular assignments are not regarded as a three point shooting threat.  This leaves one or two "sagging" players free to shift to double team if the ball comes into the paint. 

Now was Amber supposed to be sagging off her assignment last night?  Was her assignment supposed to be Crook?  I thought she was on Crook much of the time, but now I wonder if I was wrong.  I don't have a video to look at--maybe you can identify who her assigned player was.  Crook is U.SC's only consistent  three point threat and the one player who we would NOT want to sag off of.  Brianna Barrett went 2-4 from three point range last night, but is a 28% three point shooter.  I can see sagging off of her, maybe.  I do wonder to what degree the critique of Amber should be a critique of the scouting report, and how much of it was execution on the player's part.

What I am gradually realizing is that our "sag off" defense is dangerous because it helps opponents gain confidence shooting the three and can help them "heat up" for runs.  I get the sense that this happened at Washington and at U.SC.  Maybe I have not  properly understood our defensive strategy, but I am beginning to understand the need for closer man coverage even on poor shooting perimeter players.

Re: WBB: Stanford 64 U.SC 59 - chimera - 02-22-2014

I am a big believer in setting the tone early as the favorite, especially on the road.  Not novel but hey.  They are doing the opposite now, allowing teams to get easy early baskets.  We are getting everyone's best three-point shooting game for a reason.  In previous seasons, three-point defense was a big strength.  This year, not so compared to past years.  Perhaps the new rules are hurting?  Maybe we are playing off people more than usual to prevent drives and they can more easily get free to shoot?  My sense of it though is simply not enough focus and effort sticking with perimeter players.  We can do it because we see it sometimes, but we don't do it consistently enough.  I find this odd because this season the guard depth so good as is the quickness we can put on the floor.  Yet the defense is not what is should be.  The defense is not aggressive enough.

I also think we need a better plan for the offense early in games when the other team is fresh and probably playing the best defense they will play all game.  If they are going to triple Chiney and try to push her off the block, maybe let them do that but plan for it so she come out better to meet shorter passes, lets the defense collapse, and kicks for inside out three-point tries? 

Re: WBB: Stanford 64 U.SC 59 - Griffins78 - 02-22-2014

(02-22-2014, 02:51 AM)MT link Wrote:I surely didn't like the foul by Ariya Cook on Bonnie with 2:35 left in the game.  Bad sportsmanship.
That was a very dirty play. Bonnie was just running to the other side and Cook dropped off her player and purposely backed into Bonnie's path and then stuck her hip out and gave her a hockey hip check that sent Bonnie sprawling and unable to continue playing and Tara had to call a time out.

This is indicative of what I have seen our opponents doing lately starting with the first UCLA game. They are more than just physical... they are shoving, pushing, grabbing, holding, hacking, and generally fouling until the referees call the fouls and they foul out. Their plan is to physically beat us up and disrupt our movement and slow our scoring down. Unfortunately, it has been effective so they keep doing it and other teams copy.

The good thing is that this is probably what we'll see in the post season dance and we're going to have to figure out how to deal with it. Having a guard that can penetrate and either dish or stop and pop a short jumper has been one of the key factors for how well we handle that kind of aggressive, physical defense and how well we do in the tournament. Having BOTH Amber and Lilli on the floor at the same time has been an important weapon for us. And they can both hit from 3. Want Lilli to be healthy as we make the stretch run. Its amazing to me that Lilli and Briana are Freshmen and handling the ball and the defense so well.

On the defensive end - our strategy of sagging off players that don't shoot well from outside to clog the middle to deny the pass and double on their BEST player makes a lot of sense. Some times those opposing players get hot and start making 3 point shots (which they did making 4  for 4) and we were far below our average. If you just take those stats it accounts for most of the difference in the beginning of the game.

Re: WBB: Stanford 64 U.SC 59 - FarmDad.01 - 02-22-2014

Quote:On the defensive end - our strategy of sagging off players that don't shoot well from outside to clog the middle to deny the pass and double on their BEST player makes a lot of sense. Some times those opposing players get hot and start making 3 point shots (which they did making 4  for 4) and we were far below our average. If you just take those stats it accounts for most of the difference in the beginning of the game.

Agreed. How many 2013-2014 games have the Cardinal blown open by nailing a plethora of 3's? The team lost to UDub, and was jeopardized last night, by opposing shooters that nailed 3's. But USC went ice-cold from behind/beyond the arc the final 25 minutes; Stanford came back from 19 back to eke out a win.

If this was an almost-Scouting-Report-loss, don't fire the scout -- but please, not more adrenaline rushes.