WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - 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 69 Colorado 56 (/thread-87.html)

---

WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - 81alum - 01-27-2013

Stanford showed some diversification of its offense today, Chiney survived a scary twist to her left knee ankle, and the whole thing nearly melted down on a Colorado 16-2 run in the second half.  But Joslyn, Toni, and Chiney put and end to Colorado's run and we won, although after much more tension than the score might indicate.

We had four players in double digits.  Chiney was her usual awesome self, but today she upped her percentage with 8/11 shooting.  She was only 4/9 from the line, though.  I hope her early free throw woes don't make a comeback.  The most important thing is that she does not appear to have been injured.  She landed awkwardly after going up from the left side of the basket and her left knee was in ankle roll caused her obvious pain.  But she took her free throw and was back in the game after four minutes.  I breathed a brobdingnagian sigh of relief.

Toni was outstanding with 3/4 three pointers, 6/11 overall, for 15 points.  She also had 5 assists.  We have been waiting a long time for Toni's offense to heat up--let's hope it is here to stay.  Toni defended Colorado star Chuckie Jeffrey most of the way and held her to 13 points while picking up only one foul.  Also nice were her two steals, one leading to a fast break layup.

Joslyn's magic touch from three departed, but she looked much better under and around the basket than she has in quite some time.  They actually ran some plays to get her the ball in the low post--normally a Chiney play.  Jos was 6/11 and went 4/4 from the free throw line.  And she had 4 assists.  If Joslyn can play like this against good defensive teams like Colorado, then our prospects brighten down the road.

Amber had 10 points on 5/10 shooting and three assists.  Tara did not start her today, going with Sara and Toni at guard, but Amber got 36 minutes anyway.  She seemed to be doing quite well and made some outstanding cuts to the basket and a couple of swishing two point pull-up jumpers. 

Bonnie came in and her three point shots looked awful at first.  In fact, Colorado was deliberately leaving her open and daring her to shoot it for a while.  Finally she settled down and connected twice in a row, and they started defending her again.  It seems everyone knows about her streakiness.

Sara played for 19 minutes and had no points on 0/5 shooting, 0/4 from three.  She did have a couple of assists.  Her grit and hustle are always welcome, but she is going to need to score some.  She had a rough weekend from that standpoint.  Ruef continued to be a defensive player, as was Greenfield for 6 minutes.

Overall we were outrebounded by Colorado 33/39.  I noticed on some shots everyone on the team was retreating to set up the defense rather than anyone staying for an offensive rebound.  We wound up with 8 offensive rebounds but Colorado had 14.  Ruef did a great job boxing out Roberson once and collected a foul for an over-the-back. 

On turnovers, we were at 13 which is not too bad.  Assists were at 16 which is getting respectable--on 28 made baskets.  We shot only 40% in the first half but 64% in the second, leading to a 49% rate overall. 

Colorado is a very good team and our defense held them in check but did not exactly shut them down.  Colorado is the best defensive team in the PAC-12 statistically, and we got our offense on track.  Overall, I would say this was a good win and especially promising for Chiney, Toni, and Joslyn.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - Yellowlab - 01-27-2013

Dang.  I wrote a rather long post only to apparently have timed out before I could actually post it.  I guess the lesson is to either write it off-line, or make a copy of it prior to posting.  I'll never be able to remember all the great insights I had!  :)

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - 81alum - 01-27-2013

(01-27-2013, 10:12 PM)wbbfan2 link Wrote:Dang.  I wrote a rather long post only to apparently have timed out before I could actually post it.  I guess the lesson is to either write it off-line, or make a copy of it prior to posting.  I'll never be able to remember all the great insights I had!  :)

That has happened before to me several times.  Another possibility is to post a shorter post and then use "modify" to improve and expand, but that has its own risks.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - Yellowlab - 01-27-2013

I do recall my first line, which was to thank 81alum for his game recap.  I like to chime in, but the initial recap is a bit daunting for me, so I appreciate it.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - M T - 01-28-2013

Well, we won by 10+ so I should be satisfied.  But not really.  The near meltdown is the kind of time where we'll lose games against teams playing well.  Personally, I felt Tara didn't come up with the right response to the situation.    I'll detail the near choke in the next post.

Chiney's injury was a rolled ankle, and not anything with her knee.

Again we did well with Points off Turnovers (21).  Our FT% was the worst of the season. As already stated, our A/FG (13/28) was better than average.  We had another weak rebounding night, getting a weak 64% of the DR, and a very weak 24% of the OR.  For our opponents, 26 bench points is a season high, but conversely we did quite well on defense against their starters.

The refs let a lot of rough play happen, but generally seemed balanced to me.  Did you notice that it was Melissa & crew?  She did assert herself more toward the end.  But foul trouble wasn't an issue for either team.

I wonder if we'd do better with defensive rebounds if we had a transition offense that actually threatened the other team.  It seems the opponent is leaving a lot of players to rebound under their basket rather than getting back on defense.

We should have 4 easier games next, so I expect we'll see a different mix of players & emphasis on what Tara thinks we can improve on.  Personally, I'd like to see us play without Chiney (letting her rest), so the players have confidence they can win without her.  (Hint: the stats suggest that is the case.)  I'm coming to wonder if the style of game that fits Amber is not the style of play that works best for Chiney.  If Chiney sat out an entire game, that wouldn't affect her points/game or rebounds/game numbers. (It would take away a chance for a double-double.) But if she only played 20 minutes, that would likely  affect those stats.

Toni, Jos, Chiney, and Amber were not out of the game long enough to get good statistics, but bearing that in mind, the order of effectiveness of them was possibly Jos, Toni, Amber, and Chiney.
Jasmine and Erica were not in the game long enough to get good statistics.

Sara seems to be doing something right, even if she's not the one scoring.  Maybe she just acts as a catalyst, or injects some movement, or is just a really good defender.  In this game, it looks like we had much better defense with her than when she was out, so she was quite effective.  (If the whole game was played with the same scoring as the nearly half the game she was in, the final would have been 70-42.  And that's with her not hitting any of her shots!)
For Mikaela, Bonnie, and Taylor, we seemed to do better when they were on the bench than when they were in the game.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - M T - 01-28-2013

Here's how I see the play in the period where Stanford had real problems.

51-30 Amber, Bonnie, Chiney, Jos, Toni are in the game.

13:46 Amber passes in to Jos who has 2 players on her, and then proceeds to run at her, giving 3 defenders around Jos.  Jos tries to dribble away from the crowd and dribbles into a 4th player. TO Amber's player picks up the deflected ball, leaving Amber in the dust.  All Bonnie can do in a 2 on 1 break is commit a foul.  51-32
13:31 Amber tries to do it all on her own and drives to the baseline to put up a shot.  This move leaves us with only 1 possible rebounder against their 4.  Colo.. DR. Fortunately, Colorado throws the ball away.
13:05 With a full 30 seconds, Stanford is unable to get the ball beyond the top of the key until Jos gets it with :07 left.  She tries to spin around on a dribble but the ball gets away and two extra defenders pounce on it. TO Amber does hustle back to stop a wide open fast break.  A Chiney tie-ball goes to Colorado.  (Mikaela in for Jos) A pass back and forth between Amber's player and another, leaves Amber a step too far away and her player drains a long 3 pointer.  51-35
12:28 Amber's player disrupts Mikaela's dribble, but she gets the ball to Amber who drives to the block and misses everything.  Counting Amber, whose arms are down, we have two rebounders to their 4.  Colo. DR. Once Amber's player comes down with the ball, all Amber can do is run alongside her player and can't defend when she stops and pops from the foul line. 51-37
11:54 Amber is at the 3pt line where the foul line would extend when Toni gets the ball in the corner.  Amber hesitates for a second like she might do a pick, but then trots to under the basket.  Amber's defender doesn't bite and stays at the block.  When Toni dribbles to the basket she runs into the double team and loses the ball. TO
11:47 In the ensuing transition/break, Bonnie is the only one between #12 and the basket. Amber could have gotten in position to force the dribbler to go under the basket. Instead the dribbler turns towards Amber's direction and has no one there to stop her layup.  51-39.
11:40  Timeout Stanford.  (Anyone care to guess what I was yelling at this time?)
11:18 Toni takes a shot from the left block.  5 rebounders vs Chiney.  Colo. DR
11:14 On a fast break/transition, Amber was back on defense in the middle of the lane.  The dribbler, with Toni in front of her, had her choice of one player on her left in the lane or one out just inside the 3pt line on her right.  Amber goes toward the far player and the player in the lane gets the pass and an easy, almost uncontested layup.  But Mikaela makes up 5' as the shot goes up and contests it, getting called for the foul. (I think the PxP is wrong to say Missed Layup, Deadball OR, Foul)  51-40 Jos replace Mikaela.  Taylor replaces Bonnie
11:00 Playing like it is a 1 on 5 game, Amber dribbles the ball into traffic. Surprise! It gets stripped.  Tie-ball stays with Stanford. Near TO
10:51 Taylor does a bounce pass to where Amber was, but Amber is backing up. TO  Primarily Taylor's fault but Amber's defender jumps to the pass while Amber sorta reaches for it flat-footed.  Amber chases her player on the way to the basket and kinda waves at her as she goes up for the shot. Probably not fouling was wise. 51-42
10:10 Stanford can't do anything with the ball, despite getting the clock reset on two separate fouls.  Then Toni walks through her defender and gets called for the foul. TO
9:57 Toni goes to double team, leaving her player open at the elbow, who gets the ball but misses the shot.  4 rebounders for each team.  They get the OR, and on an attempted shot, it is ruled out on Stanford (but it was really a Jos foul). (Taylor replaced by Mikaela)  A shot over Mikaela comes down with about 3 Colorado rebounders and 4 Stanford.  Eventually it is a tie-ball on the floor and goes to Colorado (OR)
9:17 The defense does what the offense can't do.  Toni steps in front of a pass and takes it all the way for 2.  53-42
8:52 A missed open 3ptr comes down with 4 Stanford & 2 Colorado rebounders.  Colorado OR.  Another missed, open 3ptr comes down to 2 Stanford & 2 Colorado rebounders.  Colorado OR.  Stanford is out of position defensively and a quick drive requires Amber to reach in and foul a shooter near the elbow.  53-43
8:09 Chiney drives toward the block to put up a missed shot over two defenders.  She rolls her left ankle.  She misses both FT.  DR Still 53-43
8:06  All 5 Stanford players come back on defense en masse.  No one is guarding #11 in the corner in transition.  Amber makes a late break for her, but she has an easy three.  53-46.  There is NO reason that Amber was just watching the free throw & rebound at the 3pt line rather than being back on defense.  But, I think Toni should have taken the girl when Amber wasn't back.
7:36  Shot clock down to 7 when Amber gets fouled.  (Sara replaces Chiney)
7:33  Dangerous pass (high risk, high reward) pass by Amber gets knocked out of bounds. (Could have been a TO)
7:14  Amber dribbles the ball from 0:26 to 0:08 when she finally passes to Sara who passes to Toni who then attempts to drive but is tied up with :02 on the shot clock. Near TO  Ball stays with Stanford (Jasmine replaces Sara.  I don't understand why)
7:07 Inbound play: Jos to Mikaela to Jos for two.  55-46
[less detail beginning here]
6:18 With :07 on the shot clock, Jos is lazy on a bounce pass to Amber who is presumably using her as a pick, but the defender gets to the ball quicker than Amber. Near TO  Stanford recovers with :05 on the clock at half court..  Amber drives & passes out to Toni in the corner who hits a 3 and is fouled  58-46  (Chiney replaces Jasmine)
5:55 Toni misses her foul shot, but Chiney gets the rebound and the bucket.  60-46
5:45 Colo. shot from in the lane goes in. Stanford had 4 rebounders to their 3.  60-48
5:35 Chiney lets a pass go through her hands.  TO.
5:08 On a 3pt shot, Stanford has 3 rebounders to their 1. OR for Colo. I don't know why Jos raises her hands like something perplexes her.  They drive for a shot & miss, and we get the rebound since they had no rebounders.
4:53 Amber drives and makes a 2. We have 2 rebounders to their 3. 62-48
4:36 Amber gets a steal and goes to the basket on a fast break only to have it blocked. I believe that's the second one she had blocked like this.
4:16 After a DR, Colorado executes a 1 on 4 fast break.  62-50
4:03 Chiney sinks a shot as she's going parallel to the side line, away from the basket, at the block, with her inside hand (not a hook).  Tough shot!  64-50
3:27 Off. foul by Chiney. TO
3:21 After Toni is picked, as she takes back over her player from Chiney, Toni's player hits from just beyond the foul line 64-52
3:09 Against a press, Chiney tries to pass to Amber.  She leads Amber, who doesn't get to the ball as quickly as her defender.  TO.
2:16 Against a press, Amber picks up her dribble and tries to push between two defenders (to what purpose?). She travels. TO
1:32 In the half court, with 5 seconds on the clock, Toni is trying to get the ball inside the 3pt line & slides down. She tries to pass the ball from her knees & it is kicked (but not called). TO
Remainder of the game:  OR, DR, OR

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - Yellowlab - 01-28-2013

Any stat that suggests that Stanford could win without Chiney has to be considered dubious at best.  Of course, if the opposition is weak enough a Chiney-less team could win some games.  Against good teams?  Not a chance.  Has the offense been too Chiney heavy at times?  Absolutely.  I think the simplest explanation for that is that no one else was stepping up.  Jos and now Toni are showing signs of doing just that.

I absolutely agree that Sara James has been a positive contributor.  The offense runs better with her on the court, and she is a gritty defender.  I think she is much stronger than she may appear to be.  I noticed her switching on to a big a few times and simply holding her ground against them, not allowing them to get position.  Of course, shooting 1-16 will earn you some pine time, but I was disturbed that Tara went with Taylor in the 2nd period over Sara.

When Taylor was in we reverted to the bad old times of stand around basketball.  There was the dreaded pointless perimeter passing and excessive outside dribbling.  Taylor seems to stand behind the arc on one side of the court, and Jos on the other.  With Sara in the game she is always cutting and moving, and it makes a big difference.

One concern I have is that Jasmine is not getting any meaningful playing time.  I think their best line up has Sara at the three, which means Toni and Amber need someone to spell them.  Going into the season I thought that player would be Jasmine.

Perhaps she (and Tess) will be able to get on the floor more against some of the poorer teams.  It is an odd scheduling quirk that they're already finished with Cal, Utah and Co.  Through in games against the LA teams, and the Pac-12 schedule was decidedly front loaded. 

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - Yellowlab - 01-28-2013

I just noticed that Stanford is back up to #4 in the AP poll, and Cal has moved into the 6th spot.  Duke and Kentucky both dropped, which stands to reason.  Stanford has three top ten wins (#1, #6 and #9)  and two top ten loses (#3 and #6) and if you throw in 3-0 against top 25 teams (#15, #18, and #22) it is more impressive than anything Duke or Kentucky can lay claim to.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - yvonne - 01-28-2013

Why did Cal drop? Did they lose a game?

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - Viking_Guy - 01-28-2013

Yvonne--

Cal up from 7th to 6th.  Duke dropped from 4th to 5th, and Kentucky from 5th to 8th.

VG

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - M T - 01-28-2013

C.al moved from #7 to #6.  None of Duke, Kentucky, or C.al lost any games in the last week (but C.al did have a couple of close ones, including an OT game).

We actually have 4 wins against teams currently ranked #10 to #25  (#15 So. Carolina, #18 UCLA, #22 Colorado, #22 Colorado).  We also have a win against the #23 RPI team (Pacific, 14-3).

Stanford is still #1 in RPI (C.al is #4).  Our next 4 games are against weaker teams, so we may fall out of that.


If Stanford continues to improve and plays up to its ranking, I'd give it a 95+% chance that we'd be seeded to face UConn in the national semis.  C.al would potentially face ND or Baylor or both.  It would be interesting to see the seeding set up so that the NC game could be ND-UConn or Stanford-C.al.  It seems a travesty (but it is NCAA seeding) to set either of those pairs up so they are forced to meet earlier after probably 3 matches before the NCAA tournament.

That would have been a good question for Mary Murphy:  "Will the NCAA seed ND & UConn and Stanford & C.al so the teams from the same conference could meet at the national championship game, or will be forced to eliminate one or the other before the championship game?  Is this a championship among teams or a championship among conferences?"  Someone want to tweet it to her?

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - yvonne - 01-28-2013

thanks for the clarification

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - 81alum - 01-28-2013

(01-28-2013, 02:13 PM)MT link Wrote:kal moved from #7 to #6.  None of Duke, Kentucky, or kal lost any games in the last week (but kal did have a couple of close ones, including an OT game).

Kentucky did lose to South Carolina on January 24, and since they had also lost to Baylor earlier in the year, that is why they fell so far.  Plus we beat both of the teams that beat Kentucky.

Passing Duke is not quite as obvious, but fair.  Their only loss was to UConn, and by a similarly egregious amount as our loss.  They beat Cal, while we are 1-1 against Cal--so Duke should have the edge over us there.  But as has been pointed out, we have beaten a whole bunch of ranked teams while Cal is the only ranked team Duke has beaten.  They have Maryland and North Carolina coming up twice--so they could improve their strength of schedule.

I do wonder whether NCAA seeding will have anything to do with these rankings, though.  We have repeatedly seen in the women's game that other considerations can trump rankings.  Before we get ahead of ourselves, though, our team needs to prove that it can sweep two very good teams in LA and then beat Cal in Seattle--neither of which should be taken for granted.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - M T - 01-28-2013

81alum, thanks for the correction!  My bad.  I must have looked at the wrong line or something.

Interestingly, Duke's RPI dropped from 14 to 17 (without a loss) at
  http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-women/d1/ncaa_womens_basketball_rpi
but Kentucky stayed the same at 9 (with a loss).

I still don't trust RPI much at all.  The NCAA's simplistic ranking is quite suspect.  Maybe if they gave a score and an error measurement. (eg, Stanford is 100 +/- 5).  But when I see 4 decimal places at http://www.rpiratings.com/womrate.php (which is different than NCAA), I find it disturbing.  But maybe that's because I don't really have a good intuition of what the errors are.  I believe your score can go down if you soundly beat a weak team.

http://www.rpiratings.com/womensrpi.php is supposed to be the same ratings as used by the NCAA, but with numerical scores to 4 digits.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - CompSci87 - 01-28-2013

(01-28-2013, 02:13 PM)MT link Wrote:That would have been a good question for Mary Murphy:  "Will the NCAA seed ND & UConn and Stanford & kal so the teams from the same conference could meet at the national championship game, or will be forced to eliminate one or the other before the championship game?  Is this a championship among teams or a championship among conferences?"  Someone want to tweet it to her?

Region placements for #1 and #2 seeds are now strictly geographical. That is, the top #1 seed gets placed in the closest regional, then the second #1 seed in the closest remaining regional, etc., and then the same for the #2 seeds. Unfortunately, when one conference has both a #1 and #2 seed, this method often puts them in the same regional, something most people seem to feel is undesirable. E.g., two years ago Baylor had to face TAMU for the 4th time in the same season in the regional final.

I don't think conference membership are supposed to be considered at all, beyond the basic fact that some conferences get an automatic bid for the conference champ. But I haven't read the selection/seeding principles document, and of course don't know any unwritten rules the committee may apply when they have choices.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - meos - 01-28-2013

I'm fairly happy with the direction and progress in the last few games. Coaches are giving relatively inexperienced players the green light to explore their games (within reason). More people are attempting basketball plays, including shots, which is progress, and I'm not so concerned right now with the misses. A lot of them would do better with adding a two foot jump stop (getting balance), go up and down vertically (not leaning or fading) - into the shot. The highest percentage shot from the field though is a catch-and-shoot (many need to do that and stop dribbling automatically when a team-mate has set them up for a shot).
It was nice to see Chiney take a jumper or two, even if missed. The goal should be to take even more per game. Chiney's comfort on the left side of the basket will improve when she can execute a two foot jump stop, and take a real jump shot (sometimes off the back board, that angle is much better). The misses in that left zone for her comes from fading away (making the angle of the shot worse), and pushing the ball to the basket -- not taking the full jump shot yet. But even so, there is progress there in trying more things from that side.
This is the time of the season to take the risks. Try bringing practice skills to the court in games. Each player should find a sweet spot in practice, where they can hit a shot at above 50%, in several conditions; set shot, catch and shoot, two-foot jump stop. Then make it easy in-game, and try to get several shots off from the sweet spot.
It was interesting to observe how connected the team is generally on defense. The team flowed well together for most of these last games. By way of contrast, the offense is to often much more choppy and disconnected.The team has done enough to get 15+ leads in games. But they have also let some teams back into the games, usually with around 10 minutes left. Some of it is giving different combinations of people the opportunity to play -- which I think is a good idea. It surprised me a bit that the runs by the other team is helped along by the Stan team becoming more disconnected on defense during those periods. The defense seems to become more one-on-one, with every player wanting to steal the ball or block the shot -- and getting lots of fouls instead. Making a player take a tough shot without fouling, and relying on your teammates for support gets lost somewhat during the runs. Moving the feet, position the body -- and keep the hands and arms away from being targets opponents can exploit to get fouls.
It was also nice to see some team members playing thru tough physical defense, dishing out some contact for a change. It was nice to see members of the other team holding their jaws for a change (nothing dirty, just moving bodies into position first, or making an aggressive forceful move first when someone is laying their chin on your chest).
And it was nice to see Chiney playing essentially the 3 for a bit. Clearly it is a work in progress, but worth the risk/effort. She needs to be comfortable defending (without fouling) - and scoring from the short perimeter (not so much for remaining Pac12; but for potent versatility for NCAA run).
When Taylor was hitting shots early in the season, she was taking the ball up much more quickly to slightly above shoulder height, then releasing with good leg strength behind the shot. Seems slower uptake and lower release point now.
I smile sometimes when I see a few players running down the court and it seems that glue is stuck to the bottom of their shoes. More weight work is needed on some legs (or some much lighter shoes).
There are several upcoming games to continue making progress.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - M T - 01-29-2013

(01-28-2013, 11:09 AM)wbbfan2 link Wrote:Any stat that suggests that Stanford could win without Chiney has to be considered dubious at best.  Of course, if the opposition is weak enough a Chiney-less team could win some games.  Against good teams?  Not a chance.  Has the offense been too Chiney heavy at times?  Absolutely.  I think the simplest explanation for that is that no one else was stepping up.  Jos and now Toni are showing signs of doing just that.

Chiney is a fantastic player who works very hard and contributes in all aspects of her game.  (Congratulations to her for her 4th PAC-12 Player of the Week!)  Still, she is only one player on the court out of five.  Her being in affects the other players, just as their presence affects her game.  How the team does when she is in the game versus how they do when she is out of the game is something that can be examined.

If you only look at the 9 games against the then-top 25 teams, and you discount "garbage time" (the time after Chiney leaves the game at the end), the score when Chiney was on the floor was 550-504 in 341:09, and 28-22 in 12:16 when she was on the bench 5 times in the middle of these games.  Adjusting each of those to 40min games, the scores would be 61.1-56.0 (on the floor) versus 91-72 (on the bench).


So, on the face of it, this suggests the team does well (actually, better) with Chiney on the bench.  12 minutes and 28 points of offense doesn't seem like a too-small sample. 

But I thought about it more.  If the team is doing poorly, it is less likely that Chiney is taken out.  If she is taken out, how the team does without her influences how much time she is on the bench.  For instance, she was out for 3:08 against Baylor while the rest of the team gained 2 points.  She was out for 0:36 against UConn while the team lost 3 points.  So, in essence, there's cherry-picking going on.  Still, it is a reflection of how the team did with Chiney on the bench.

I also thought about the sensitivity of those numbers to slight changes.  The much smaller sample is when Chiney is on the bench, where if two shots had rattled out instead of going in, the numbers would have been close enough to call equal.  That's 14% of the points scored while she was out.

I continue to think it would be good for the team to play extended minutes (not just garbage time) with Chiney on the bench to give them the confidence that they can play essentially as well if she goes down with a rolled ankle or gets into foul trouble when it is a critical game.  They will face a different offensive situation if defenders aren't sloughing off to double and triple team Chiney.  They will have to step up and take to the offensive themselves.


By the way, it was Amber stepping up in the UCLA game, hitting 6 points in a couple of minutes, that most influenced the offense while Chiney was on the bench.  My impression is that she would play more effectively without someone like Chiney and her triple team clogging up the middle, making it difficult for her to drive to the basket.

(If Jos shoots 40% for 3PT, she'd hit 8 in a row about every 1525 independent sets of 8 shots)

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - M T - 01-29-2013

(01-28-2013, 09:40 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Region placements for #1 and #2 seeds are now strictly geographical. That is, the top #1 seed gets placed in the closest regional, then the second #1 seed in the closest remaining regional, etc., and then the same for the #2 seeds. Unfortunately, when one conference has both a #1 and #2 seed, this method often puts them in the same regional, something most people seem to feel is undesirable. E.g., two years ago Baylor had to face TAMU for the 4th time in the same season in the regional final.

I don't think conference membership are supposed to be considered at all, beyond the basic fact that some conferences get an automatic bid for the conference champ. But I haven't read the selection/seeding principles document, and of course don't know any unwritten rules the committee may apply when they have choices.

The document governing this year's seeding is at
  http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa/release/sites/default/files/files/2013%20WBKB%20Principles%20and%20Procedures.pdf
It reads like IRS instructions.  I compared it to the 2009 document.  Most of the changes involved wording changes regarding the number of votes needed for decisions, moving away from a presumption of a particular committee size.  There was one new clause:  " If possible, a higher seeded team will not play on a lower seeded team’s home floor an inordinate number of times."  But no changes to geographical placement. 

However, I didn't find wording that exactly matched what you said regarding geography.  Instead I find these two competing paragraphs:

Quote: The committee will attempt to assign each team to the
most geographically compatible regional and first‐
/second‐round site, by order of the s‐curve. When
multiple teams are a similar distance from a site, the
team seeded higher in the s‐curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.
...
If possible, teams from the same conference shall not be
placed in the same region in Line Nos. 1‐4.

As I read that, if a conference has a team seeded #1 to #4 (on line 1) and a team seeded #5, the committee is allowed to choose whether to place the #5 team in the same region (first rule) or in a different region (second rule).  My naive reading would have been that the second rule ("if possible") trumps the first rule ("will attempt")

In Feb 2011, Charlie Creme wrote
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/columns/story?columnist=creme_charlie&id=6122381

Quote: Texas A&M is next and of the remaining regions, Dallas is the closest. However, putting the Aggies there with Baylor as the No. 1 would violate a major principle -- that no more than one team from a conference may be seeded in the same grouping of four in line Nos. 1-4 in a region, unless a conference has five or more teams seeded in line Nos. 1-4. (The committee actually violated this principle in 2008 when it placed UConn and Rutgers as the 1-2 in the same region without there being five teams from the Big East among those top seeds. Following the outcry, that mistake is unlikely to ever happen again.)

and followed up with this a month later after the committee did it again
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/tournament/2011/columns/story?columnist=creme_charlie&id=6216888

Quote:But, this year … it happened again.

Baylor is the No. 1 and Texas A&M is the No. 2 in the Dallas Regional. Why? The answer all week will certainly be what it was in 2008 -- keeping teams in more geographically friendly regions and all else be damned. Why, then, the change in philosophy each of the past two years? It doesn't make sense. The fix is easy. Flip-flop the pods that A&M and Notre Dame are in. The Aggies play into Dayton, the Irish play into Dallas. Is that really such a big deal when it avoids the top teams in arguably the top conference potentially meeting before the Final Four for a fourth time?
...
This exact same issue happens in the Spokane Regional this year with Stanford as the No. 1 and UCLA as the No. 3. It's completely unnecessary. Fans don't want it, coaches don't want it and the media doesn't want it.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - 81alum - 01-29-2013

The Coaches poll is out and it has two interesting differences from the AP poll.  Duke is 4 and Stanford is 5.  And UConn and Notre Dame are also reversed. 

I guess the two losses Stanford has vs. the one loss Duke has weighed heavily on the coaches.  I think a more important comparison are the 7 top-20 wins Stanford has vs the 1 top-20 win Duke has.  I don't think putting Duke above Stanford is very defensible--especially with Stanford's Baylor win and Duke and Stanford's equal Conn losses.  After all, we lost to Cal, but we also beat them.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 56 - 81alum - 01-29-2013

(01-29-2013, 05:35 AM)MT link Wrote:I continue to think it would be good for the team to play extended minutes (not just garbage time) with Chiney on the bench to give them the confidence that they can play essentially as well if she goes down with a rolled ankle or gets into foul trouble when it is a critical game.  They will face a different offensive situation if defenders aren't sloughing off to double and triple team Chiney.  They will have to step up and take to the offensive themselves.

I agree with this, especially as we face some less accomplished teams.  I have noticed that when Chiney goes out there seems to be a greater intensity on the part of each remaining starter.  It is not so much that I think we need to prepare for the possibility of Chiney being injured or fouling out--if that happens it will be a disaster no matter what preparation we have.  Rather, I think it may help the other players to learn to be more aggressive, more offense-minded, and to learn the nuances of the system when they have to be prepared to pass to any of the other four players rather than having the Chiney crutch to lean on.  And this will improve their play down the road when Chiney is in.

A completely separate argument centers on the development of our bench players.  If we get some big leads against some of the weaker schools I hope that Tess, Bonnie, Taylor, and Jasmine get some extended time.  But it is equally or more important for the main starters other than Chiney to hone their offensive capabilities together.

By the way, in a couple of articles I have read this year I sense that Ruef would have liked to come back.  And in the latest Michell Smith article there is this:

Quote:Ruef is in her fourth year of eligibility. And all of Stanford's scholarships are spoken for next season.  "I am trying not to let that get to me," Ruef said. "Sitting out last year, I did realize that I took for granted being able to play. It was tough to come to practice, watch every practice, go to every game and not be able to do anything. That has helped me this year."

Anyone have some insight into whether Tara can pull a rabbit out of her hat to keep Reuf here another year, or whether she would want to?  We will have Beebe, McCall and Johnson next year--all three 6'3" and highly talented--but of course none of them have played at the college level, although they all have strengths and perhaps one of them might start in her first year. 

---