The CardBoard
WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - 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: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT (/thread-8300.html)


WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - 81alum - 11-20-2014

Overview:
Our defense really had no answer for the height advantage Texas used to score 34 points in the paint and many more from just outside it.  Despite a career day for Lili,  Texas led for nearly the entire game.  We finally pulled ahead in the last minutes of regulation and led by 2 with seconds remaining before giving up a last second 3 foot jumper to allow overtime.  In overtime we looked tired, the pace was slowed, passes looked labored, jumpers were a bit short, and Texas clawed its way to victory. 

Flow of the Game
From the start it felt like it was going to be an uphill struggle.  Tonight Taylor Greenfield started at wing, and unfortunately she continued her streaky three point shooting by going 0/5 tonight.  She had a couple of nice floaters in the lane when she took it to the hoop, but all of our outside shooters struggled.  Lili was 3/9, Karlie 1/5 etc.  and we wound up 25% on three point shooting.  Texas clogged the lanes pretty well and forced a lot of outside shots, and so the poor shooting percentage hurt. 

The game was hampered by a ridiculous number of fouls--51 total.  This probably helped us more than it hurt us since Texas picked up 30 fouls and had 2 of their starters foul out.  Even so, the flow was completely disrupted and disjointed.  28 of our points came on free throws, which we shot at 74%, while they scored only 17 points on free throws, which they also shot at 74%.

As I watched I was mystified that our screens were almost completely ineffective.  I'm not sure if Texas was doing something to neutralize them, but most of the time it just seemed as if the screens were set too late or the ball handler cut around them too widely, allowing the Texas defender to pass by unmolested.  The double screen did not really appear until the very end of the game and then it seemed to work to get us open for a three. 

Despite my offensive gripes, 81 points really ought to be enough to win a game--our main problem is poor defense.  Four of their starters were in double figures.  Their height advantage was very noticeable.  We were out rebounded 44-37, but the biggest effect was that their tall players could camp out on the blocks and shoot 6 foot jumpers with no way to stop them.  It was a bit reminiscent of our old offense--feeding the ball in to the bigs inside who do not have to do layups but can do face-ups.  A lot of these did not show up as points-in-the-paint since there were so many face-ups from just barely beyond the key.

Which brings us to the real difference in the game.  Texas shot a lot better than we did.  They shot 48.5%, which is ridiculously high.  We shot 36%, which is ridiculously low.  The fact that we were able to tie it and send it to overtime is due pretty much solely due to our free throw advantage.  But when the opponent shoots near 50% there is something seriously amiss with the defense.

With all of these issues and problems, the crowd cheered and the team scrapped, and Lili completed a three point play with 3:42 to tie the game for the first time since the early minutes of the first half.  Texas completed yet another inside layup and Bonnie drained a three for our first lead of the game in forever.  Kaylee hit a free throw with 12 seconds left but missed another, and we had a 2 point lead. 

I had a feeling that we had to win the game then or there or overtime would not be kind to us.  Sure enough, we gave up another point-blank jumper to allow the game to go to overtime.

We seemed slower and tired in overtime to me.  The "pace and space" began to look a lot like last year, with a slower and more methodical pace and a lot of passing and handoffs around the perimeter.  We were 0/4 from three point range in overtime, 1/7 for field goals overall.  It seemed that the only way we could possibly score was with free throws, and while we got 4 of those, they got 5, to go along with a trey and 3/6 field goals.  It just looked like we wore out. 

Performances:

Lili scored 28 points, but it seemed almost as lopsided as when Chiney was a one woman show.  Lili was 9/22 and added 7/9 free throws.  She is going to get the opponent's best defender the rest of the year.  The poor kid played 43 minutes, and it was obvious that she was slower at the end than at the beginning.

Amber was our only other double digit scorer.  She had 15 points--many of them scored near the end when she was playing with 4 fouls.  She also had 3 steals including one for a fast break layup. 

We simply needed more offense from others, and did not get it. 

Kaylee was a superb rebounder again, with 13.  She made one basket and 5/10 free throws.  That is becoming a pattern with her--she scores most of her points from free throws.

Amber got into foul trouble early, and so Bri got a lot of minutes.  She had 8 total points--all on free throws.  Bonnie was Bonnie, 2/5 treys and another basket for 8 points. 

No one else had more than 4.

On the defensive end it was pretty ugly in the first half, but we did improve in the second half.  Whatever adjustments we made helped--Texas went from 53% shooting to 44% shooting.  One of the adjustments was fronting Kelsey Lang to deny their 6'5" center the ball.

Looking Ahead
Well, the UConn game probably inflated our hopes too much, and we should not let this game deflate them too much.  Texas looks to me like a very, very good team.  They led us last year at half even when we had Chiney, and they are much better and deeper this year than last.  I would not be surprised to see them in the elite eight or better come March.

I said at the beginning of the year that a youthful team like ours would drop some games early, and Texas probably won't be the last.  North Carolina and Tennessee are coming up, and each of them will have looked at this tape and have the personnel to replicate the Texas strategy if they choose to do so.  We need to learn how to make our screens more effective and we need to figure out how to stop big posts from taking six foot jumpers forever.  It would also help if our three point shooting became more consistent:  we shot 50% and beat UConn.  We shot 25% and lost to Texas. 

Something tells me Tara will find a way.



Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - CompSci87 - 11-20-2014

Remarkably, we match up much better against UConn than against Texas.

I would agree that the screens were not crisp. Not really sure if that was the dribbler's fault for going too wide around the screener or if the screen was set too early or too late.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - 81alum - 11-21-2014

A few more random observations about the game.

As I reflect on UConn and Texas, I wonder if we benefitted a lot from the plethora of fouls that the referees are calling so far this season--preventing the game from being very physical at all, and giving a younger, smaller team more of a chance.  If the foul calling returns to something a bit more normal, do we have the physical presence required? 

Texas dramatically cut back on our guard penetration.  Their coach said that was their goal before the game, and they did it.  Is it so easy to do?  I could not recognize their defense.  It had characteristics of zone and man in the first half.  Anyone else figure out what they were doing?  And short of launching (and missing) a million bombs, what is the proper counter?

I'm a bit worried about Erica McCall.  In the summer league she was awesome, and in the exhibitions she looked so much improved over last year.  Against Boston College she looked like a young Chiney, going 7/11 for 16 points.  Against UConn she was 2/6 and played only 11 minutes--she jacked up a bunch of ugly mid range jumpers.  Against Texas she was 1/2 in 19 minutes of play.  Her offense virtually disappeared.  Is it just the competition?  Did something happen to her self-confidence?  Did she get instructed to work on her jump shot?  The change was sudden and dramatic.  The coaches need to do something to get her back into the game.

Kaylee Johnson is a remarkable frosh.  She gets a lot of rebounds, partly because that seems to be her role and we pull a lot of other players out to the perimeter.  But she takes very few shots of her own.  Is that by design, or should she become somewhat more aggressive about scoring?

Tara talked a lot about quickening the pace and rotating more players into the lineup to keep it fresh, particularly our guards.  But Lili played 43 minutes and Amber played 29, despite being in foul trouble a lot of the night.  This took a toll by the end.  Bri was pretty effective for 13 minutes.  Alex got only a few minutes, and Jasmine Camp seems to have vanished.  I was expecting something more from these two redshirt juniors in anticipation of a fifth year for them next year.  Now I wonder a bit.  I've wondered about Jasmine ever since she had a terrific game against UConn her freshman year.  Why has she not been more of a factor over the years, and what is in store for her?





Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - Yellowlab - 11-21-2014

That was a very tough loss, but our first post-game comments were about how entertaining it was.  Texas seemed to be pulling away at several points, but Stanford always battled back.  Stanford had a real chance to steal the game at the end of regulation, but we had to give Texas credit.  They deserved the win.

Their post players were bigger and more physical than ours, and Texas also had good speed on the perimeter.  They are a good team.  I suspect that there will be a number of games this season that could go either way, and I expect Stanford to win their fair share of them.

I agree that another scorer needs to step up.  K. Samuelson seemed a bit beat up and was not hitting her shots last night.  She does have the ability, however, and she might be the missing piece.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - Jskass - 11-21-2014

I also saw Erica McCall in the summer league and was really impressed. I wonder if the new offense (as used for UConn and TX) is really focusing too much on 1 inside player and leaving her in no position because the decision has been made to use Kaylee J. Perhaps not always use the spread approach?

Also I noticed the same thing on Kaylee. Great rebounder but she automatically passes it back out instead of laying up the O rebound. Plus she is so focused on going straight up on defense that she doesn't go for the block as aggressively as Kailee J. So perhaps need to do a bit more of using those 3 for those 2 positions or we will get crushed by bigger teams. Plus it seems thus far as though we are wasting some incredible talent.

I think the Bonnie-Karlie team did well against UConn but that doesn't mean it's the right combo for all teams. If u add them to Lili and Amber, then you have one true big, which just may not be enough in 80% of our games.

Do we really need to give people a 5th year if they're not important physical (as opposed to emotional/leadership) contributors? Or are we better off having 2 more scholarships to offer next year? I am also perplexed by Camp, who did great in that game but then has played probably the least.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - chimera - 11-21-2014

I think the level of competition and the two brobdingnagian games within a few days was a big reason the team seemed a bit tired and probably explains what happened with McCall.  I had hoped for more from her in these games.  I hoped for more offense from all our inside players.  I have to think it will come with time and experience for them and for the guards running the offense.  I keep telling myself to have patience in all things and be ready for inconsistent play and the coaches adjusting and trying new things on the fly often.  They will have some easier games in Hawaii, except for UNC, and New Mexico is not very good for the Monday game.  They need those games to work on all the new stuff, get the younger players going, get their confidence up, etc.  If we see the same struggles in another month I will start to worry.  Right now, we know they can play with top 10 teams even when the shots are not falling and foul trouble takes Amber out of the game for long stretches.  The schedule did us no favors.  Trying to follow up the ultimate hype of a UConn game with another top 10 game is tough with a young team.  I thought Texas played very well and very smart.  We fought back and almost stole the game.  Now we lament that we could not steal it at the end, but really, Texas played better, so as much as I hate it, the result was fair.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - 81alum - 11-21-2014

(11-21-2014, 02:26 PM)chimera link Wrote:  They will have some easier games in Hawaii, except for UNC, and New Mexico is not very good for the Monday game.  They need those games to work on all the new stuff, get the younger players going, get their confidence up, etc.  If we see the same struggles in another month I will start to worry.  Right now, we know they can play with top 10 teams even when the shots are not falling and foul trouble takes Amber out of the game for long stretches. 
New Mexico narrowly beat its exhibition opponent and has since lost 49-51 to UTPA, lost 52-66 to Texas A&M, and lost 59-97 to DePaul--all three losses coming at a tournament in Chicago.  A&M and DePaul (essentially at home) are strong teams.  New Mexico trailed #5 A&M by only a single point at the half. 

This could be a bit of a trap game for us.  We will be the Lobo's home opener.  Playing in "the Pit" is never easy.  I note from their website that they are selling every ticket for $2 in an effort to get people out for the game.  They will have the David vs. Goliath complex working for them--and they will have absolutely nothing to lose.  I doubt that we are a better team than A&M at this point, and New Mexico played them close at a neutral site.  It will be good for our team.  Getting the experience of playing in the Pit might help us be ready for large hostile crowds in the future, like Tennessee.  Of course, New Mexico seems to be on a down year, and they certainly are no Tennessee in terms of talent.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - TheFarm07 - 11-21-2014

Thanks for the detailed analysis as always.  Being on the East Coast means I had to listen to the radio stream and the announcers were not very descriptive.  I was so frustrated that we were throwing up so many 3's when we weren't shooting the ball well and I couldn't figure out why Amber and Lili weren't driving more, especially late in the game when Texas's bigs were in foul trouble.

On defense, it seemed like all of Texas's shots went in; I obviously did not see the game and I couldn't figure out why it sounded like the basket on Texas's side of the court were 10 feet wide.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - BobK - 11-22-2014

Texas A&M beat Pan American by 2.  Not sure they are that good.

We have 6 Srs. Gave 4 scholies and have two redshirts among the 6 who will play next season giving us 3 scholies not one for next year. 😃

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - CompSci87 - 11-22-2014

(11-21-2014, 01:55 PM)Jskass link Wrote:Do we really need to give people a 5th year if they're not important physical (as opposed to emotional/leadership) contributors? Or are we better off having 2 more scholarships to offer next year?

We don't need to, and we don't. Tara has made it clear that a 5th year isn't guaranteed. Remember even Ruef was set to walk on for her 5th year until a scholarship opened up due to medical retirements. Ros GO got a 5th year only because Diggins went to ND. Michelle Harrison didn't get a 5th year and transferred to Utah.

Whether we're better off taking a new recruit this year or waiting until next year and giving a veteran a 5th year depends on what players are available and admissible in each class.

The 10 minutes where UTexas was fouling 1+ foul per minute - M T - 11-22-2014

When Amber sat down in the first half against UTexas,  Stanford seemed to switch to more effective driving for shots.  At least it was more effective in the sense that UTexas started committing a lot of fouls.  I believe it was because they weren't able to deal with the style of play.

We started the second half in much the same fashion.  But then we seemed to quit forcing the fouls, just as we had several of their players with 3 fouls.  I felt that if we had kept it up for 5 more minutes, we'd have had UTexas in real foul trouble with maybe 10 minutes left. 

UTexas was called for 7 fouls in the first 13:50 before Amber was called for her 3rd foul.  UTexas was called for 7 fouls in the next 6:10.  They were called for 4 more in the first 4:06 of the second half until Amber came back in (15:54).  They committed just 9 more in the remaining 15:54 of regulation.  So, with Amber on the floor,  UTexas committed 16 fouls in 29:44 (a rate of 24.4 fouls per 40 min);  With Amber on the bench, UTexas committed 11 fouls in 10:16 (a rate 48.2 fouls per 40 min), almost twice the rate.

If Texas had played for even 5 more minutes at this double foul/minute rate and gotten about 3 more fouls (than they did) as indicated by this rate, they would have been in more severe foul trouble (I believe 1 player was out and two had 4 fouls at the end of regulation).

Getting your opponents into foul trouble doesn't work well if you only do half the job, or even 3/4 of the job.

I believe using the faster players as we were during this 10 minutes might be a better way to deal with teams with larger, good athletes.  Doing half the job didn't get it done.

Notes:
Just for comparison sake, Stanford had 7 fouls in the first 13:50, 3 in the next 6:10; 3 in the first 4:06 of the 2nd half, 3 in the remaining 15:54.  The refs didn't seem to go crazy calling fouls during that 10 minutes.

If you're looking at the bottom line only, we outscored Texas by 2 to 4 points during that 10:16. (3 points officially; 4 points if you count from the end of the foul shots Amber's foul created.)  That's not surprising considering the differential number (5) of fouls.

I only looked at the fouls in regulation.  During this time, only 1 or 2 fouls (all by UTexas) might be considered as intentional.  Removing those fouls would make my point stronger, so I left them in.  Intentional fouls in overtime would only add noise so I didn't consider overtime at all.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - 81alum - 11-22-2014

(11-22-2014, 01:16 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=Jskass link=topic=11163.msg105949#msg105949 date=1416603334]
Do we really need to give people a 5th year if they're not important physical (as opposed to emotional/leadership) contributors? Or are we better off having 2 more scholarships to offer next year?

We don't need to, and we don't. Tara has made it clear that a 5th year isn't guaranteed. Remember even Ruef was set to walk on for her 5th year until a scholarship opened up due to medical retirements. Ros GO got a 5th year only because Diggins went to ND. Michelle Harrison didn't get a 5th year and transferred to Utah.

Whether we're better off taking a new recruit this year or waiting until next year and giving a veteran a 5th year depends on what players are available and admissible in each class.
[/quote]
All true, but I think more even recruiting is probably better--3-4 a year rather than the "sixpack" approach.  We have announced our 4 for next year--we did not announce 6, so I think Tara will give Jasmine and Alex another year if they want it.  If they don't, she might just save the scholarships for 2016.  There are some good kids in that year and she might want to be sure to have a few scholarships.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - Jskass - 11-22-2014

Yes of course!

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - Mike - 11-23-2014

PICK AND ROLL

Obviously, both Amber and Lili have no trouble positioning themselves for 3-POINTERS, keeping the screener between themselves and their defenders to get the shot off, because they know how to use a PICK. So why, time and again in the Texas game when driving to the basket, did they choose to drive ON THE DEFENDER'S SIDE of the screen, negating the value of the PICK? Skilled as they both are, they were successful many times, of course. But that's making it more difficult than necessary ... UNLESS you're setting up the ROLL part of the PICK AND ROLL. However, I only saw one attempted lob to a screener all night (which was picked off, unfortunately).

Still, why aren't there some passes to the screeners off all these drives? Are the screeners not putting themselves in good positions for receiving the ball, or are the dribblers just deciding to drive every time? It seems the screeners/ROLLERS would be open at least some of the time, and passing to them would eventually lead to less pressure on the penetrators.

As an aside: Has anyone noticed that Kaylee has only one turnover in three games? For a big, playing in a crowd under the basket, that's terrific! She has been a find.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - 81alum - 11-23-2014

(11-23-2014, 02:59 AM)Mike link Wrote:PICK AND ROLL

Obviously, both Amber and Lili have no trouble positioning themselves for 3-POINTERS, keeping the screener between themselves and their defenders to get the shot off, because they know how to use a PICK. So why, time and again in the Texas game when driving to the basket, did they choose to drive ON THE DEFENDER'S SIDE of the screen, negating the value of the PICK? Skilled as they both are, they were successful many times, of course. But that's making it more difficult than necessary ... UNLESS you're setting up the ROLL part of the PICK AND ROLL. However, I only saw one attempted lob to a screener all night (which was picked off, unfortunately).

Still, why aren't there some passes to the screeners off all these drives? Are the screeners not putting themselves in good positions for receiving the ball, or are the dribblers just deciding to drive every time? It seems the screeners/ROLLERS would be open at least some of the time, and passing to them would eventually lead to less pressure on the penetrators.

As an aside: Has anyone noticed that Kaylee has only one turnover in three games? For a big, playing in a crowd under the basket, that's terrific! She has been a find.
Good points, all.  In the exhibition games the screener always broke for the basket with a hand up, but rarely got a pass.  Against Texas I don't think I ever saw the screener break to the basket with a hand up.  Perhaps it was some sort of Texas-specific strategy, but it was odd.  And clearly, our team can get a whole lot better at executing the pick and roll--both the picks and the rolls.

The Texas defense seemed to flummox us.  I think they had a three person triangular zone in the center with two guards manned up on Amber and Lili.  Instead of a box-and-1 it looked like a triangle-and-2--if there is such a thing.  Or maybe it was just a very active 3-2 zone.  (I've tried to find the game on replay but have failed so far.)  In any case, they limited penetration inside, but this left Bonnie and Karlie and Taylor open at the perimeter 4 and the 3.  In fact, those 3 took 15 three point shots and made just 3.  I wondered why Tara did not let McPhee play out there some more--she was 1/1 from three, and could not have shot any worse than her teammates.

So remember the last couple of years when they choked the inside to deny Chiney the ball, and this forced us to make three point shots to draw the defense out?  Something similar seems to be possible when it comes to denying penetration.  I predict that each game the opponents will choke the lanes until we prove we can score treys.  Bonnie and Karlie (and McPhee?) need to strike fear into their hearts and force them to come out to defend.

As for New Mexico, they averaged much higher attendance than we did last year.  Be prepared for 8000 absolutely loud and screaming fans on Monday night.  Not the friendliest place to get back on track.

Re: WBB: Texas 87 Stanford 81 OT - TheFarm07 - 11-23-2014

Even though New Mexico will be a tough place to play in, let's see if we learned our lesson.  It can be frustrating -- during the UConn game, we saw how Tara outcoached Geno, but yet during the Texas game, we couldn't adapt to their strategy and tactics and we had opportunities to win that game if we did as everyone has been commenting on.