The CardBoard
wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - 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 79 U$C 60 (/thread-8848.html)


wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - TheFarm07 - 02-13-2015

Looks like a good win, 79 pts and sounds like we were in control for most of the game.  Also good to see that we extended the lead in the 2nd half and prevented them from closing.  Hopefully, the Arizona loss shook this team up in a good way.

Troubling statistic was the sheer number of offensive opponents by our adversaries.

We shot quite well from 2-point range (26-39 = 66.7%), which was nice to see.

Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - 81alum - 02-13-2015

Stanford 79 US.C 60

Overview:

Tara shook up the starting lineup and gave seniors Erica Payne and Jasmine Camp starts over Lili or Bri tonight.  While they played sparingly, the tone was set, and the players seemed to focus better.  Eight minutes into the game we took the lead and kept it on the basis of 55% shooting for the rest of the game.

Before the game

Tempie talked to the boosters and was forthright, honest, and good natured while helping us make sense of the recent debacle.  I really don't know what kind of coach Tempie is, but she is a superb spokesperson.  I would have to think she would be a superb recruiter.  She noted that Stanford had no all-Americans, and so the talent level is not the same as it once was.  (As Bob pointed out to me after tonight's game, we have 7-8 9 top 50 recruits while teams like Arizona and ASU have 0-1, so we do in fact have considerable talent on the team.)  I don't think Tempie was using a lack of talent as an excuse, but as an explanation for the transition in the team's mindset.  For years it has been a team with a central star and then a supporting cast--and it has been used to many  30 point blowouts.  Now the team needs the offensive scoring to be very evenly distributed among many players, and it is going to be in a lot of close games.  Even our seniors are experiencing true pressure on a nightly basis for the first time in their careers.  Tempie used the word "choked" when describing what happened.  She also pointed out some serious communication problems when three of our players would be running one play and the other two something else.  When looking carefully at the tape and seeing all of the breakdowns they saw that we really deserved to lose the game.

To overcome this, Tempie said they were not trying to fix all the problems at one, but working on just a few at a time.  She alluded to the possibility that they would reach down into the ranks for more senior leadership--and of course we saw the starts for Jasmine and E Payne later.  She said they had hit "rock bottom" and responded to a question that "the pressure is off" in a way now that they know they probably won't win the Pac 12.  The Pac 12 tournament is looking better and better to us.  One hopeful fan pointed out that a few years ago Tennessee lost 10 games and then won the national championship.  Well, hope springs eternal, as they say.  I'll be happy just winning our next game, for now.

Flow of the Game

The atmosphere was OK, helped by the Dollie reunion and the faithful band--which is as good as an extra couple thousand people.  I did my best lunatic imitation trying to cheer and scream and boo at every opportunity on the theory that this team really, really needs an enthusiastic fan base.  I got some annoyed looks for the effort--our fans are just too nice for our team's own good sometimes.

It was a shock to see E Payne and Jasmine Camp start, and while I liked the symbolism, there is probably a reason they have not started before.  However, they started well, and they each got a basket within the opening minutes.  Bonnie did not shoot well at first, though, and USC got out to a lead on the basis of scorching jumpshots.  But after eight minutes had gone by we had caught up again and took the lead for good when Amber made a close jumpshot followed by a layup by Karlie.

U.SC is not a good shooting team but clobbers people on the O-Boards and gets many points off of putbacks.  They play very physically and we were not helped by a relatively hands-off officiating crew.  Bonnie took a nasty forearm from Brianna Barrett that was not called, for example, as it was off ball.  During the first half I saw Tara's strategy for dealing with it.  We were in a man, but our players sagged so far off of it that at times we had all five players standing in the paint when the USC shots went up.  We were daring them to do longer jumpshots and sometimes they connected, but we also forced turnovers when USC tried to go into the paint and we limited the O-boards for SC by having so many players close in.  That said, there were still a few breakdowns and the strategy worked just barely well enough to keep the lead.

By the end of the first half most of our normal players were playing and we went in with an 11 point lead.  The second half opened poorly, and SC was getting layups and free throws on some questionable calls to get as close as five points, but then we pulled away again and kept a safe lead the rest of the game.  Lili got a fast break layup, Bonnie began to connect on treys, and the lead extended into double digits.  This time we kept it there and did not let up.  Bri scored in double digits in the first half, and Lili scored in double digits in the second half, but in general the offense was spread around fairly evenly.

Performances

We had four players in double digits--Lili with 14, Bri and Amber with 13, and Bonnie with 12; but Kaylee had 9 and Erica 8.  This is a model for how our offense has to be for us to be successful.

On rebounding we were less successful--although we did not get completely wiped out.  SC had 38 to our 34.  19 of SC's rebounds were Offensive, leading to SC getting 16 second chance points compared with our 10.  Tara's decision to pack people in limited SC to only 6 O-boards in the first half, but we got away from that in the second and gave up 13 O boards late.  Not sure why we changed defenses.  Kaylee had just 5 rebounds--Amber had as many.  Again, we were spreading rebounds out due to the pack-it-in strategy.

We were outstanding on turnovers--only 7 to their 12.  Erica had a couple of blocks, one rather emphatic that made the highlights shown at the game.  12 assists was a lot for us--a welcome change.  Lili had 4 of those assists--also showing that her focus is improving and that she does not think she needs to attack the basket when driving if there is someone else open.

I am finding when looking over the stats, remembering the game, and trying to pick out a star that it is hard to do so.  And that, I think is the point.  Based on team defense, balanced scoring, and increased assists, we played together as a team much better than we have for a while.

The game even had a few feel good moments, when Alex fed Tess for a basket and when Rooks made a layup at the end.

Parting Thoughts

This was a good first step forward for recovery.  Consider it a twelve step program--step two comes against UCLA.  UCLA may not be as dangerous a team as USC, but it is radically different in playstyle and so I expect we will see an entirely different defense than we did tonight.  I wonder who Tara will start.

Finally, I should mention that the game ended on a bad moment.  On a desperation pass with the game long decided, an SC player leaped and crashed to the court as time expired...and did not get up.  After a long wait, she got up and hoppled off the court between the arms of SC staff, grimacing in pain for what looked like a possible knee injury.  "All Right Now" was delayed for five minutes and the crowd gave a warm ovation to the player, but it always sickening to see these injuries--and such a useless one too. 

Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - CompSci87 - 02-13-2015

At the game we were puzzled about who started and who sat. What message was being sent, and to whom? After getting home I watched some of the game on DVR and the broadcasters said the captains (Jasmine, EPayne, and Amber) got to start. So it was about captains starting, not about specific players not starting.


Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - BobK - 02-13-2015

9 top 50 players.  We have talent. 

We are a one on one team.  Today it worked fine as players made some nice to great shots.  But we should understand it's one on one. 

Leading rebounder was Bonnie

The trivia question tonight,  ah to the important things, name the 11 first rounders from Stanford to the WNBA.  Starts with 1997
Chiney
Nneka
Appel
Pohlen
Peterson
Powell
Wiggins
Yamasaki
Starbird
Flokl. 
Did I get them

Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - BostonCard - 02-13-2015

Well, considering you only guessed 10, I'm thinking you missed one.

I'd have guessed Brooke Smith, but she was drafted in the second round.

The missing one was Jamila Wideman, drafted third in the 1997 WNBA draft.

BC

Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - JasonJT - 02-13-2015

(02-13-2015, 10:45 PM)BobK link Wrote:9 top 50 players.  We have talent. 

We are a one on one team.  Today it worked fine as players made some nice to great shots.  But we should understand it's one on one. 

Leading rebounder was Bonnie

The trivia question tonight,  ah to the important things, name the 11 first rounders from Stanford to the WNBA.  Starts with 1997
Chiney
Nneka
Appel
Pohlen
Peterson
Powell
Wiggins
Yamasaki
Starbird
Flokl. 
Did I get them
First 7 are correct.  The other 4 are Wideman, Azzi, Mulitauaopele, and Steding.

Wideman was drafted 3rd in 1997.  Azzi went #5 in 1999, which was when the ABL folded and all the players went to the W.  Kate Starbird was drafted in the 3rd round in 1999.  Not many college players were drafted (ex: Becky Hammon went undrafted because of all the ABL players).  Folkl was allocated to the Minnesota Lynx because they were an expansion team.

In 2000, both Naomi Mulitauaopele and Katy Steding were drafted in the 1st round.  I'm guessing they opted not to enter the 1999 draft after the ABL folded (both played in the ABL).  Yamasaki was drafted in the 2nd round.

Almost a trick question since we wouldn't have considered older players like Azzi, Steding, etc.

I reckon Orrange has a shot to be drafted in the 1st round.  This year is rather weak for college prospects going into the W.



Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - 81alum - 02-13-2015

(02-13-2015, 10:45 PM)BobK link Wrote:We are a one on one team.  Today it worked fine as players made some nice to great shots.  But we should understand it's one on one. 
What do you mean, Bob?

Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - BobK - 02-14-2015

I mean our Offense didn't change at all and we often held the ball to 10 seconds or under then a player went one on one and she scored.    Or 2nd  half out to Bonnie and she scored. We shot 55? % or so.  Almost all going one on one against their USC player. 



Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - BobK - 02-14-2015

Jason that's fantastic thanks.  At a mbb game several years ago I was on the floor on camera with a similar question the mbb  first round NBA choices.  I got all but two which I thought darn good for spur  of the moment

Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - 81alum - 02-14-2015

(02-14-2015, 09:49 AM)BobK link Wrote:I mean our Offense didn't change at all and we often held the ball to 10 seconds or under then a player went one on one and she scored.    Or 2nd  half out to Bonnie and she scored. We shot 55? % or so.  Almost all going one on one against their U$€ player.
Oh, I see what you mean.  Yes, that has been the nature of the guard oriented offense all year.  But it is not always one on one.

We made 32 field goals last night.  12 of them were on assists, meaning 20 were not.  1 was a fast break.  So 12 assisted field goals to 19 unassisted half court field goals.  Not a terrible ratio, and probably not that much different from the triangle.  However, most games this year have not been like that.  Here is hoping the assists continue and the offense stays a bit more balanced.

What was that play where time almost expired and was it Lili who dished to Amber who rolled in a layup as the shot clock buzzer sounded?  That brought the crowd to its feet and must have been particularly demoralizing to SC, although it did seem as if we got lucky and made a lot of baskets at the very end of the clock.

Re: wbb: Stanford 79 U$C 60 - CompSci87 - 02-14-2015

Lili mentioned that play in the post game interview (audio linked from the FBC website www.stanfordfbc.org). She just said Amber made a great cut. The way I'd describe it is that Lili penetrated into a crowded lane and was in trouble without enough time to pass out to the perimeter and reset, and Amber just made a great individual move to bail her out.