The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - 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 70 New Mexico 65 (/thread-8347.html)


WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - 81alum - 11-25-2014

Overview

Our offense was sluggish, probably because Lili did not play.  Nevertheless, we managed to scratch our way to a win in very hostile territory.  Not an impressive win.  Let’s hope that Lili, who just won national player-of-the-week, is back and at full strength for North Carolina on Friday.

Flow of the Game

The New Mexico Lobos have one of best fan bases in college WBB.  They averaged 6000 attendance last year, which was a down year for them, and their underground arena “The Pit” can be noisy and hostile.  They had more than 7000 turn out for us.  The New Mexico PR folks were practically giving tickets away trying to pack their arena, but the Pit could hold many more-- perhaps due to their 0-3 start.  Even so, I was nervous about this game.

The nerves were made worse when I learned that Lili was ill and would not play.  And then...the worst moment of all, the recognition of the Cardboard’s most hated referee.

Tara started Amber and Karlie at guards, Taylor at wing, and Erica and Kaylee as posts. 

For the first few minutes it looked to be a blowout.  Six minutes into the first half we had a 16 point lead, largely on the strength of three treys by Karlie.  Karlie was looking to be the offensive force that she was not against Texas, and the downpour of threes silenced the crowd and made it seem like New Mexico was grossly overmatched. 

That was wrong.

New Mexico proceeded to go on a 23-6 run to capture a 2 point lead.  How did they do it?  We packed our defense inside and practically begged them to shoot threes.  Well, they did–4 of them, which they mixed in with some layups and freethrows against what is clearly showing itself to be a very sub-par Stanford defense this year. 

For the rest of the half we went to a more aggressive man defense and New Mexico did not get those wide open three point shots.  However, they were able to penetrate for some layups and jumpers, and we painfully traded some baskets and went in to half tied.  In that half we dominated rebounding 24-12 which kept us in the game.  Curiously, I saw very few screens at all in the half.  No picking and no rolling to speak of, just passing and penetrating.  Three point shots and simple drives to the basket with an occasional offensive rebound seemed to be the whole offense.  Also curious is that McCall had only 7 of the 20 minutes. 

The second half started very well.  Karlie was open for a three, Amber penetrated for a pull-up midrange jumber, and Karlie drove all the way to the basket for a layup.  On defense we were in man and New Mexico took some poor shots.  Amber took it coast to coast, and Bri fed Kaylee Johnson alone under the basket for a second quick strike, and just like that we were up by 12.  The second half was starting out like the first. 

At 14:12 in the second half the best pick and roll of the game was done without a guard.  Kailee was the screener and Greenfield went by towards the basket.  Kailee broke to the basket with her hand up and Greenfield passed to her for the easy layup.  That is the way it supposed to happen! 

For the next 10 minutes we could not expand our lead, but we held even.  A variety people scored in different ways, and our man defense prevented any major runs.
 
Then the wheels fell off.  We missed three three point shots in three possessions and each time NM cut into the lead a bit more, until we were tied, then trailed by 1 with 40 seconds left.  Stone cold three point shooting at an inopportune time cost us the game against Texas, and it looked like it would happen again.  On the next possession I noticed we tried the double screen–it has come out at almost the last possession in each of our last three games now.  It didn't work,  but Kaylee got fouled when awkwardly receiving an entrance pass.  After having gone 4/8 from the line, she sank both free throws to retake the lead with 30 seconds left.  It was nice to see a frosh come through in the clutch.  At the other end, Amber inexplicably NM’s best free throw shooter off-ball and sent  her to the line for 2.  But miracles do happen, and NM missed them both. 

With 20 seconds left, the foul-game began and Bonnie drained 2 for her first points of the game.  On NM’s possession Amber played brilliant defense and blocked a three point shot and stole the ball and got fouled.  Wow!  She drained 2, and we win by five.

Performances

Karlie scored 23 points on 6/12 three point shooting and some nifty moves to the basket.

Kaylee had 22 rebounds and 10 points, including 2/3 shooting. Continues to impress.  She has become a full time buzzer-to-buzzer starter.

Amber had 18 points and did most of the penetrating guard play in the absence of Lili, shooting 7/16 on layups and mid range jumpers, mostly.

Greenfield, after going 0/5 from three point range last game, went 0/4 from three point range this game.  However, she had 8 point and 5 assists. 

McCall and Kailee basically split time in the other post.  Both had blocks but neither won scored much.

Overall, we out rebounded NM 50/31, and advantage that will not happen against North Carolina.  We shot only 40%, which is low enough to lost most games.  We turned it over 12 times compared with New Mexico’s 6.  In its recent game against De Paul New Mexico turned the ball over 38 times.  Why we did not press them more I do not understand.    Our free throw shooting was woeful at times–61%.  We set few screens and once again began the game unable to defend the trey. 

Looking ahead

We have our hands full.  Toni Kokenis was out wilth“illness” after a concussion.  I hope that Lili has a virus instead.  We need her back for a difficult Hawaii trip.  Our team keeps shows flashes of brilliance, but it clearly has a lot to learn.  North Carolina is 4-0 and has already beaten 21 Oklahoma State and 23 UCLA and Oregon.  They are a team with size and strength inside, and we will not have Chiney and Ruef this time.

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - BobK - 11-25-2014

23 Ucla is a funny line as they are 0-3  :)

She who shall not be named by me played 30 minutes thus the close game.  Check her total minutes vs UConn.    Stupid  >:(

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - Viking_Guy - 11-25-2014

Bob--

Don't know if you were reading the game thread, but I was just about to punch my computer screen watching her play matador defense and not box out.  Two or three times I can remember she closed out on one of those open three-point shooters with her hands down at her sides.  30 minutes at the 3 or 4 and 4 rebounds against an undersized team.  To be fair, she did have 5 assists.  But unless she rediscovers a consistent outside shot, she's not the stretch threat that Bonnie is, or the inside threat of either Bird or the Johnsons.  She needs to be an inside post-up threat when she's got 3-4 inches on her defender.

One comp for Kaylee, reaching way back for those who remember - reminds me a LOT of Rachel Hemmer.  Limited offensive game right now, and prone to freshman mistakes, but rebounds and energy for days.

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - 81alum - 11-25-2014

Bob, VG, others,

Greenfield made some beautiful assists, but the defensive lapses and shooting 0/9 from three point range (last two games) do not warrant 30 minutes of playing time in last night's game.

My main question for keen-eyed observers is--what is up with Erica McCall?  She started but had only 11 minutes last night, she started and had 19 against Texas, she started and had 11 minutes against UConn.  She is not really competing for time against Kaylee right now--Kaylee more or less has the other "big" slot to herself.  But Kailee or even a three guard/1 wing line-up seem to be cutting deeply into her minutes.  But for all of that she keeps starting.

This is beginning to remind me of Sara James.  Is there something physical that is limiting her time?  Or is it just that she is not developing into the inside scorer that we thought she would?  Or is it just the scheme?

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - BobK - 11-25-2014

I did watch the game on line and had to calm myself as she who shall not be named made little effort on D.    Of course she is playing instead of McCall due to some mystical reason. 

Strange who we beat UConn with Bonnie playing far more than shall who shall not be named.

My favorite play, although VG, nailed the other best, was her pass to McPhee with 4 seconds on the shot clock and when McPhee couldn't get a shot off poor Brittany is benched.

I'm normally a very positive guy but this calls for action.

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - Viking_Guy - 11-25-2014

On Taylor:

I think A LOT of the reason she is getting playing time is just Tara's and the coaching staff's familiarity with her game.  They'll take the known pattern of problems, because it is known.  A young player coming in makes mistakes they haven't seen before, so they seem more obvious.  It's a theme going back to Martha Richards and others who played a bit more aggressively/out of control - those errors are somehow more salient when they come from players who haven't been on the floor as much.

I also think we're going to have to figure out some more offensive options for the bigs.  The way UNM defended was to simply switch all screens, and we're going to see a lot of that going forward, especially if only Lili and Amber are willing to drive against bigs who switch onto them.  As one person put it, there has to be a regularly utilized "roll" option in the pick and roll, or it just doesn't work.  Also to be fair, the constant switching of screens looked like it opened up the offensive rebounding for Stanford a lot; the bigs had switched onto perimeter players, allowing Johnson to get matched up with a smaller player on the o-board.

And one other positive: I didn't notice any totally egregious Missy-caliber calls last night.  Although a Lobos fan might have :).

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - Jskass - 11-25-2014

If McCall is healthy, I think we have to insert her more -- and in a position where she can take inside shots. She took one outside shot then missed it and gone. Almost like McPhee one mistake and gone. Still think a lineup of Amber-Lili- Karlie or Bonnie-McCall-Kaylee should create more balance than what we're doing now if we stick with it and let them work it inside too. I was so bummed last night -- realize that Lili wasn't playing but it looked like being Chiney-less all over again. We have too much talent to sink into inertia.

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - BobK - 11-25-2014

Good one jck.  Back to what to do to improve, great thoughts. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - Viking_Guy - 11-25-2014

One other gripe:

About the only result to make ESPNUConn's airwaves and WBB homepage in the last few days (after "UConn Blows a Game" headlines which barely mentioned Stanford):  the Huskies beating hapless Creighton by 36 points.  Along with another episode of their season-long series about Geno Auriemma.  Notre Dame's utter destruction of Holy Cross, or new #1 South Carolina's demolition of an occasionally good San Diego State team?  Eh.

Again, all the caveats about Geno's a great coach, and UConn has the legacy of success to brag about.  But I will never admit that such a history can be disentangled from essentially having a national network in your corner for 20 years.

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - 81alum - 11-25-2014

When it comes to UConn, ESPN reminds me of Russian media, some of which is privately owned but which shamelessly promotes Putin and his plutocratic friends.  There seems to be no expectation of neutrality or even-handedness in either case. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - Yellowlab - 11-26-2014

I've been drumming the same tune about Bird all year.  Her minutes will be match up dependent.  Her inside game is ineffective against big posts (see Texas) and she isn't tall enough to bother them on the other end.  While the Johnson's are technically only an inch taller they are much longer.

The truth is that we probably don't have an adequate answer for big strong posts this year.  It is another reason to sing Ruef's praises for the job she did last year. She banged all game long against some very big bodies.

I was impressed by VG's comment about why Tara sticks with she who must not be named.  Better the Devil you know...

The other factor I thought about re: Bird's minutes is that Tara has always had a quick hook.  Sara James would get in the game, make a mistake, and sit right back down.  It wasn't until Tara was practically forced to keep her on the floor that James settled down, and became a steady contributor.

Perhaps Bird needs more minutes before she can start earning them?  Still, I think we might have another Tinkle.  Great against mediocre competition and out matched against superior competition.  I hope I'm wrong.

At first I thought the answer to the big post problem was to run them off the court with a guard oriented offense.  Then, I remembered Tara telling us that this is hard to do now, because of all the media time-outs.  It might still be our best bet.

I will enjoy watching the N. C. game, which should be very educational.  Oh wait!  Never mind.
 

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - BobK - 11-26-2014

Wow not quite factual about Sara. 

Sure hope any player becomes as good as Jos Tinkle a great post who played out of position for the team.  Team Chemistry does count.  :P

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - Yellowlab - 11-26-2014

(11-26-2014, 01:26 PM)BobK link Wrote:Wow not quite factual about Sara. 

Sure hope any player becomes as good as Jos Tinkle a great post who played out of position for the team.  Team Chemistry does count.  :P

We can agree to disagree.

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - BobK - 11-26-2014

You can I'll go with the facts.    :) :) :)

Re: WBB: Stanford 70 New Mexico 65 - Yellowlab - 11-26-2014

(11-26-2014, 04:45 PM)BobK link Wrote:You can I'll go with the facts.    :) :) :)

I remain unimpressed by your argument.