01-31-2020, 08:50 PM
WBB: Stanford 58 Washington 41
Looking at what the two Arizonas are doing on their home courts--that trip we take to the state of Arizona on the last weekend of the Pac 12 regular season looks absolutely brutal. And it comes after we host the two Oregons. I hope we had a superb record going in to the last two weeks because I seriously doubt we can get through those four games unscathed.
The stats are pretty even at the half. We've each taken 31 shots, but we have 3 more baskets and 4 more of them were treys. Even turnovers have evened out, but boy that stretch of turnovers we committed was ugly. We could be leading by 20 if we had stopped that bleeding a few turnovers earlier.
The stats are pretty even at the half. We've each taken 31 shots, but we have 3 more baskets and 4 more of them were treys. Even turnovers have evened out, but boy that stretch of turnovers we committed was ugly. We could be leading by 20 if we had stopped that bleeding a few turnovers earlier.
Looking at what the two Arizonas are doing on their home courts--that trip we take to the state of Arizona on the last weekend of the Pac 12 regular season looks absolutely brutal. And it comes after we host the two Oregons. I hope we had a superb record going in to the last two weeks because I seriously doubt we can get through those four games unscathed.
The stats are pretty even at the half. We've each taken 31 shots, but we have 3 more baskets and 4 more of them were treys. Even turnovers have evened out, but boy that stretch of turnovers we committed was ugly. We could be leading by 20 if we had stopped that bleeding a few turnovers earlier.
The stats are pretty even at the half. We've each taken 31 shots, but we have 3 more baskets and 4 more of them were treys. Even turnovers have evened out, but boy that stretch of turnovers we committed was ugly. We could be leading by 20 if we had stopped that bleeding a few turnovers earlier.
(01-31-2020, 09:02 PM)mbdude Wrote: Melgoza 0 pts 1st halfYup. Tara's defensive schemes can be awesome. No one does it better than she does when there is 1 primary offensive target to shut down. On the other hand, two years ago in this game, on this court, Melgoza scored 40.
Lacie is back, Jerome is playing.
Belibi missed a dunk!
(01-31-2020, 09:02 PM)mbdude Wrote: Melgoza 0 pts 1st halfYup. Tara's defensive schemes can be awesome. No one does it better than she does when there is 1 primary offensive target to shut down. On the other hand, two years ago in this game, on this court, Melgoza scored 40.
Lacie is back, Jerome is playing.
Belibi missed a dunk!
01-31-2020, 09:24 PM
5 turnovers in the 3rd help Washington get back into the game, Stanford 41 Washington 33. Our three point shooting cooled off, and turnovers and misses let Washington make some runs.
01-31-2020, 10:13 PM
My write up is done at the top. A win on the road is always a good win. Our defense was awesome, especially on Melgoza. Our offense could use some of the talent that is sitting in the mash unit.
01-31-2020, 10:20 PM
More Analytical Tools for Tonight’s Game
Three sets of stats were available right after the game—Shooting references, Shot Chart, and Area Chart. The Shot Chart has filters for Shot Type, Player, and Period. I’m not sure how long they will be available.
http://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=279892
Three sets of stats were available right after the game—Shooting references, Shot Chart, and Area Chart. The Shot Chart has filters for Shot Type, Player, and Period. I’m not sure how long they will be available.
http://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=279892
More Analytical Tools for Tonight’s Game
Three sets of stats were available right after the game—Shooting references, Shot Chart, and Area Chart. The Shot Chart has filters for Shot Type, Player, and Period. I’m not sure how long they will be available.
http://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=279892
Three sets of stats were available right after the game—Shooting references, Shot Chart, and Area Chart. The Shot Chart has filters for Shot Type, Player, and Period. I’m not sure how long they will be available.
http://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=279892
02-01-2020, 01:14 AM
This was a very ugly game to watch in person. No one on either team had much success shooting, and neither team seemed to be able to get into any kind of offensive flow.
I will be a bit of a dissenter on Stanford's defense. I didn't think the defense was all that great; Melgoza looked very "off" all game long. She had plenty of open looks but the ball wasn't going in. We were all wondering if Melgoza was sick because she looked fairly lifeless, and Wynn kept subbing her out.
Washington clogged the middle and had clearly scouted the Princeton offense from the elbow. Without Carrington (or Jones) to keep the defense honest, our offense was very...static. There was a lot of outside shooting and not a lot of shots created from ball movement or penetration. Washington did a good job of beating our players to spots.
I haven't seen the post-game presser, but Tara seemed pretty upset for large stretches of the game. Note, for instance, the quick hook for Belibi after she missed the slam. She also pulled Jenna Brown right after Brown seemed to miss a defensive assignment.
Jump got a lot of minutes, but her shot was just off tonight. I think she needs to be more confident in her mid-range game because, like Karlie, defenders close out on her quickly, so she's going to get lots of opportunities to take a first step and pull-up.
Prechtel and Jump are getting a lot of great minutes that they wouldn't necessarily have had without injuries. Bright side is that this will likely accelerate their maturation. What a solid freshman class. Fingers crossed for Jones.
I am starting to assume that we may not see either Dodson or Carrington back this year.
I will be a bit of a dissenter on Stanford's defense. I didn't think the defense was all that great; Melgoza looked very "off" all game long. She had plenty of open looks but the ball wasn't going in. We were all wondering if Melgoza was sick because she looked fairly lifeless, and Wynn kept subbing her out.
Washington clogged the middle and had clearly scouted the Princeton offense from the elbow. Without Carrington (or Jones) to keep the defense honest, our offense was very...static. There was a lot of outside shooting and not a lot of shots created from ball movement or penetration. Washington did a good job of beating our players to spots.
I haven't seen the post-game presser, but Tara seemed pretty upset for large stretches of the game. Note, for instance, the quick hook for Belibi after she missed the slam. She also pulled Jenna Brown right after Brown seemed to miss a defensive assignment.
Jump got a lot of minutes, but her shot was just off tonight. I think she needs to be more confident in her mid-range game because, like Karlie, defenders close out on her quickly, so she's going to get lots of opportunities to take a first step and pull-up.
Prechtel and Jump are getting a lot of great minutes that they wouldn't necessarily have had without injuries. Bright side is that this will likely accelerate their maturation. What a solid freshman class. Fingers crossed for Jones.
I am starting to assume that we may not see either Dodson or Carrington back this year.
This was a very ugly game to watch in person. No one on either team had much success shooting, and neither team seemed to be able to get into any kind of offensive flow.
I will be a bit of a dissenter on Stanford's defense. I didn't think the defense was all that great; Melgoza looked very "off" all game long. She had plenty of open looks but the ball wasn't going in. We were all wondering if Melgoza was sick because she looked fairly lifeless, and Wynn kept subbing her out.
Washington clogged the middle and had clearly scouted the Princeton offense from the elbow. Without Carrington (or Jones) to keep the defense honest, our offense was very...static. There was a lot of outside shooting and not a lot of shots created from ball movement or penetration. Washington did a good job of beating our players to spots.
I haven't seen the post-game presser, but Tara seemed pretty upset for large stretches of the game. Note, for instance, the quick hook for Belibi after she missed the slam. She also pulled Jenna Brown right after Brown seemed to miss a defensive assignment.
Jump got a lot of minutes, but her shot was just off tonight. I think she needs to be more confident in her mid-range game because, like Karlie, defenders close out on her quickly, so she's going to get lots of opportunities to take a first step and pull-up.
Prechtel and Jump are getting a lot of great minutes that they wouldn't necessarily have had without injuries. Bright side is that this will likely accelerate their maturation. What a solid freshman class. Fingers crossed for Jones.
I am starting to assume that we may not see either Dodson or Carrington back this year.
I will be a bit of a dissenter on Stanford's defense. I didn't think the defense was all that great; Melgoza looked very "off" all game long. She had plenty of open looks but the ball wasn't going in. We were all wondering if Melgoza was sick because she looked fairly lifeless, and Wynn kept subbing her out.
Washington clogged the middle and had clearly scouted the Princeton offense from the elbow. Without Carrington (or Jones) to keep the defense honest, our offense was very...static. There was a lot of outside shooting and not a lot of shots created from ball movement or penetration. Washington did a good job of beating our players to spots.
I haven't seen the post-game presser, but Tara seemed pretty upset for large stretches of the game. Note, for instance, the quick hook for Belibi after she missed the slam. She also pulled Jenna Brown right after Brown seemed to miss a defensive assignment.
Jump got a lot of minutes, but her shot was just off tonight. I think she needs to be more confident in her mid-range game because, like Karlie, defenders close out on her quickly, so she's going to get lots of opportunities to take a first step and pull-up.
Prechtel and Jump are getting a lot of great minutes that they wouldn't necessarily have had without injuries. Bright side is that this will likely accelerate their maturation. What a solid freshman class. Fingers crossed for Jones.
I am starting to assume that we may not see either Dodson or Carrington back this year.
02-01-2020, 02:02 AM
(01-31-2020, 10:20 PM)Baez87 Wrote: More Analytical Tools for Tonight’s Game
Three sets of stats were available right after the game—Shooting references, Shot Chart, and Area Chart. The Shot Chart has filters for Shot Type, Player, and Period. I’m not sure how long they will be available.
http://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=279892
Worth looking at, but beware it takes some understanding.
First, the layups&dunks are only shown in the margin around the court, on the right side (in this case). Makes sense to avoid them all being on top of one another.
The box score indicates Stanford made 9 threes and 12 twos. The all-player shot chart shows 8 threes and 7 twos on the court + 5 two's in the "Made layups/dunks"
Both makes by Fingall are on the all-player shot chart (made by "04"), but no shots are shown when you look at shots by her.
It seems likely that they have a problem with players with numbers < 10. "3" vs "03" I'll bet they also have a problem with "0" and "00".
It is also confusing that the score is shown "Stanford - Washington", but the court is ordered "Washington - Stanford" (I'll guess that's left from the 2nd half). When I've seen shot charts before, each team's shots were folded onto a single half-court but not here. It's ok to show them as they do, but it wasn't what I expected.
Under tools, you can save various representations of their data. The clearly intend for you to post it (they mention Twitter or Instagram).
If only the Cardboard supported attachments, I'd post an image of the shotchart. But, it only supports posting things by URLs.
(01-31-2020, 10:20 PM)Baez87 Wrote: More Analytical Tools for Tonight’s Game
Three sets of stats were available right after the game—Shooting references, Shot Chart, and Area Chart. The Shot Chart has filters for Shot Type, Player, and Period. I’m not sure how long they will be available.
http://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=279892
Worth looking at, but beware it takes some understanding.
First, the layups&dunks are only shown in the margin around the court, on the right side (in this case). Makes sense to avoid them all being on top of one another.
The box score indicates Stanford made 9 threes and 12 twos. The all-player shot chart shows 8 threes and 7 twos on the court + 5 two's in the "Made layups/dunks"
Both makes by Fingall are on the all-player shot chart (made by "04"), but no shots are shown when you look at shots by her.
It seems likely that they have a problem with players with numbers < 10. "3" vs "03" I'll bet they also have a problem with "0" and "00".
It is also confusing that the score is shown "Stanford - Washington", but the court is ordered "Washington - Stanford" (I'll guess that's left from the 2nd half). When I've seen shot charts before, each team's shots were folded onto a single half-court but not here. It's ok to show them as they do, but it wasn't what I expected.
Under tools, you can save various representations of their data. The clearly intend for you to post it (they mention Twitter or Instagram).
If only the Cardboard supported attachments, I'd post an image of the shotchart. But, it only supports posting things by URLs.
02-01-2020, 03:22 AM
Maybe the starting 5 for Washington were all sick, because it took 16 minutes for their first basket (per TV announcers). They only scored 7 points in the entire game (granted, they only played 44% of the available minutes -- they were on track for a 16 point game, if they played the full game and scored at the same rate).
I disagree with triangle2 and feel the defense was a major cause of the low score by Washington. Indeed, Washington did very well on offense when their defense and Stanford's mistakes resulted in turnovers and fast breaks, scoring almost half (19 of 41) their points in the 2nd quarter. Those are situations where Stanford's defense isn't effective.
The defense wasn't perfect, but there was a lot of tight defense that shut down opportunities players were probably used to. Take away the best opportunities, and what's left may not be what players are used to doing. Reduce the ball getting to the better players and shots are less likely to fall. I don't think I've ever seen a game where the starting 5 only got 17% of the scoring.
One of the interesting aspects of that shutdown was that the starting 5 didn't even get many free throws (all of the starting 5's 6 FTs were by one starter, who made 2). It has been my impression that much more physical play is being allowed, without fouls being called. I haven't looked at any statistics to see if fewer fouls are being called. (Note that allowing more contact only temporarily (over a season or so) reduces the number of fouls. The players will just cause more contact until they get called for fouls again. Similarly, calling a tighter game with less contact allowed will only temporarily increase the number of fouls, until the play adjusts.)
Our offense wasn't great. I didn't think about it during the game, but shooting (& steals) stats suggests they clogged the middle. Just over half our shots were 3ptrs (9/33(27%), with Jump only 3/11), while for the season only 36% of our shots have been from 3. Our non-layup 2-ptrs were 7/21(33%). Our layups/dunks were 5/10(50%). Yet we did very well on offensive rebounding. I'm tempted to say a lot of that was due to Lexie's hustle.
Belibi is a very smooth player, but she seems a little slow to react on defense.
I disagree with triangle2 and feel the defense was a major cause of the low score by Washington. Indeed, Washington did very well on offense when their defense and Stanford's mistakes resulted in turnovers and fast breaks, scoring almost half (19 of 41) their points in the 2nd quarter. Those are situations where Stanford's defense isn't effective.
The defense wasn't perfect, but there was a lot of tight defense that shut down opportunities players were probably used to. Take away the best opportunities, and what's left may not be what players are used to doing. Reduce the ball getting to the better players and shots are less likely to fall. I don't think I've ever seen a game where the starting 5 only got 17% of the scoring.
One of the interesting aspects of that shutdown was that the starting 5 didn't even get many free throws (all of the starting 5's 6 FTs were by one starter, who made 2). It has been my impression that much more physical play is being allowed, without fouls being called. I haven't looked at any statistics to see if fewer fouls are being called. (Note that allowing more contact only temporarily (over a season or so) reduces the number of fouls. The players will just cause more contact until they get called for fouls again. Similarly, calling a tighter game with less contact allowed will only temporarily increase the number of fouls, until the play adjusts.)
Our offense wasn't great. I didn't think about it during the game, but shooting (& steals) stats suggests they clogged the middle. Just over half our shots were 3ptrs (9/33(27%), with Jump only 3/11), while for the season only 36% of our shots have been from 3. Our non-layup 2-ptrs were 7/21(33%). Our layups/dunks were 5/10(50%). Yet we did very well on offensive rebounding. I'm tempted to say a lot of that was due to Lexie's hustle.
Belibi is a very smooth player, but she seems a little slow to react on defense.
Maybe the starting 5 for Washington were all sick, because it took 16 minutes for their first basket (per TV announcers). They only scored 7 points in the entire game (granted, they only played 44% of the available minutes -- they were on track for a 16 point game, if they played the full game and scored at the same rate).
I disagree with triangle2 and feel the defense was a major cause of the low score by Washington. Indeed, Washington did very well on offense when their defense and Stanford's mistakes resulted in turnovers and fast breaks, scoring almost half (19 of 41) their points in the 2nd quarter. Those are situations where Stanford's defense isn't effective.
The defense wasn't perfect, but there was a lot of tight defense that shut down opportunities players were probably used to. Take away the best opportunities, and what's left may not be what players are used to doing. Reduce the ball getting to the better players and shots are less likely to fall. I don't think I've ever seen a game where the starting 5 only got 17% of the scoring.
One of the interesting aspects of that shutdown was that the starting 5 didn't even get many free throws (all of the starting 5's 6 FTs were by one starter, who made 2). It has been my impression that much more physical play is being allowed, without fouls being called. I haven't looked at any statistics to see if fewer fouls are being called. (Note that allowing more contact only temporarily (over a season or so) reduces the number of fouls. The players will just cause more contact until they get called for fouls again. Similarly, calling a tighter game with less contact allowed will only temporarily increase the number of fouls, until the play adjusts.)
Our offense wasn't great. I didn't think about it during the game, but shooting (& steals) stats suggests they clogged the middle. Just over half our shots were 3ptrs (9/33(27%), with Jump only 3/11), while for the season only 36% of our shots have been from 3. Our non-layup 2-ptrs were 7/21(33%). Our layups/dunks were 5/10(50%). Yet we did very well on offensive rebounding. I'm tempted to say a lot of that was due to Lexie's hustle.
Belibi is a very smooth player, but she seems a little slow to react on defense.
I disagree with triangle2 and feel the defense was a major cause of the low score by Washington. Indeed, Washington did very well on offense when their defense and Stanford's mistakes resulted in turnovers and fast breaks, scoring almost half (19 of 41) their points in the 2nd quarter. Those are situations where Stanford's defense isn't effective.
The defense wasn't perfect, but there was a lot of tight defense that shut down opportunities players were probably used to. Take away the best opportunities, and what's left may not be what players are used to doing. Reduce the ball getting to the better players and shots are less likely to fall. I don't think I've ever seen a game where the starting 5 only got 17% of the scoring.
One of the interesting aspects of that shutdown was that the starting 5 didn't even get many free throws (all of the starting 5's 6 FTs were by one starter, who made 2). It has been my impression that much more physical play is being allowed, without fouls being called. I haven't looked at any statistics to see if fewer fouls are being called. (Note that allowing more contact only temporarily (over a season or so) reduces the number of fouls. The players will just cause more contact until they get called for fouls again. Similarly, calling a tighter game with less contact allowed will only temporarily increase the number of fouls, until the play adjusts.)
Our offense wasn't great. I didn't think about it during the game, but shooting (& steals) stats suggests they clogged the middle. Just over half our shots were 3ptrs (9/33(27%), with Jump only 3/11), while for the season only 36% of our shots have been from 3. Our non-layup 2-ptrs were 7/21(33%). Our layups/dunks were 5/10(50%). Yet we did very well on offensive rebounding. I'm tempted to say a lot of that was due to Lexie's hustle.
Belibi is a very smooth player, but she seems a little slow to react on defense.
02-01-2020, 04:17 AM
I sometimes wonder if the PAC-12 organization has some axe to grind against Stanford. Or maybe they don't bother to require their producers to try to give equal time.
One of their "Message provided by the PAC-12 conference" messages promotting women's sports that I've seen on the PAC-12 channel many times caught my eye tonight. I always felt like it was strange for them to talk about the women winning championships, and yet I hadn't noticed any of the Stanford success being shown.
So, I took note of what they showed:
USC WSOC(?) huddle; Colorado Women lacrosse; UCLA male coach; UCLA women's team NC WBVB; UCLA women's SB; WVB Colorado@ASU; WSU male; WSOC @Wash (I can't tell the opponent); USC @ Oregon WBB; WBB @ PAC-12 tourney Colorado vs Utah; Colorado male coach; Colorado WLAX; Women's gymnastics UCLA@Utah; USC male; USC WLAX PAC-12 tourney; WBB Oregon State @WSU
Did you notice that 3 schools don't even show up? That might be understandable, but they missed 7 women's national championships in the last 2 years (the video was made in 2019), which seems counter to their message.
As it happened, I was watching a Sling recording of the Cal-WSU WBB game and rewound about a minute or so at 1:16, when Sling decided to send me back to about 0:26 and force me to watch their commercials. Immediately after that commercial was a PAC-12-furnished message touting the PAC-12 women's basketball tournament. Did it show any of last year's title game? No. It showed WBB for these schools:
Washington; WSU (just for an instant); UCLA; Arizona vs ASU; WSU male; a game at WSU; Utah vs Colorado; Washington player; Washington vs Utah; WSU; Cal coach; Cal; UCLA coach; Colorado vs Utah; UCLA.
At least for this one, you could argue that they are trying to sell to the teams that aren't going to be sending a top team. No Oregon, OSU, Stanford. But it seems backwards to me. You think many fans of Cal will go to the PAC-12 tourney because of seeing this spot?
So, then I stumbled onto the San Jose Mercury News sports page on the web that reported Friday night's results. The headline reads:
C'mon now.... How 'bout some respect?!
(If you were wondering: BCDFGHLMNP+RS)
One of their "Message provided by the PAC-12 conference" messages promotting women's sports that I've seen on the PAC-12 channel many times caught my eye tonight. I always felt like it was strange for them to talk about the women winning championships, and yet I hadn't noticed any of the Stanford success being shown.
So, I took note of what they showed:
USC WSOC(?) huddle; Colorado Women lacrosse; UCLA male coach; UCLA women's team NC WBVB; UCLA women's SB; WVB Colorado@ASU; WSU male; WSOC @Wash (I can't tell the opponent); USC @ Oregon WBB; WBB @ PAC-12 tourney Colorado vs Utah; Colorado male coach; Colorado WLAX; Women's gymnastics UCLA@Utah; USC male; USC WLAX PAC-12 tourney; WBB Oregon State @WSU
Did you notice that 3 schools don't even show up? That might be understandable, but they missed 7 women's national championships in the last 2 years (the video was made in 2019), which seems counter to their message.
As it happened, I was watching a Sling recording of the Cal-WSU WBB game and rewound about a minute or so at 1:16, when Sling decided to send me back to about 0:26 and force me to watch their commercials. Immediately after that commercial was a PAC-12-furnished message touting the PAC-12 women's basketball tournament. Did it show any of last year's title game? No. It showed WBB for these schools:
Washington; WSU (just for an instant); UCLA; Arizona vs ASU; WSU male; a game at WSU; Utah vs Colorado; Washington player; Washington vs Utah; WSU; Cal coach; Cal; UCLA coach; Colorado vs Utah; UCLA.
At least for this one, you could argue that they are trying to sell to the teams that aren't going to be sending a top team. No Oregon, OSU, Stanford. But it seems backwards to me. You think many fans of Cal will go to the PAC-12 tourney because of seeing this spot?
So, then I stumbled onto the San Jose Mercury News sports page on the web that reported Friday night's results. The headline reads:
Quote:Women’s college basketball: Stanford cruises past Washington
Lexie Lull scored 17 points to lead the sixth-ranked Stanford Cardinal past Washington in the Pac-12 Conference game
C'mon now.... How 'bout some respect?!
(If you were wondering: BCDFGHLMNP+RS)
I sometimes wonder if the PAC-12 organization has some axe to grind against Stanford. Or maybe they don't bother to require their producers to try to give equal time.
One of their "Message provided by the PAC-12 conference" messages promotting women's sports that I've seen on the PAC-12 channel many times caught my eye tonight. I always felt like it was strange for them to talk about the women winning championships, and yet I hadn't noticed any of the Stanford success being shown.
So, I took note of what they showed:
USC WSOC(?) huddle; Colorado Women lacrosse; UCLA male coach; UCLA women's team NC WBVB; UCLA women's SB; WVB Colorado@ASU; WSU male; WSOC @Wash (I can't tell the opponent); USC @ Oregon WBB; WBB @ PAC-12 tourney Colorado vs Utah; Colorado male coach; Colorado WLAX; Women's gymnastics UCLA@Utah; USC male; USC WLAX PAC-12 tourney; WBB Oregon State @WSU
Did you notice that 3 schools don't even show up? That might be understandable, but they missed 7 women's national championships in the last 2 years (the video was made in 2019), which seems counter to their message.
As it happened, I was watching a Sling recording of the Cal-WSU WBB game and rewound about a minute or so at 1:16, when Sling decided to send me back to about 0:26 and force me to watch their commercials. Immediately after that commercial was a PAC-12-furnished message touting the PAC-12 women's basketball tournament. Did it show any of last year's title game? No. It showed WBB for these schools:
Washington; WSU (just for an instant); UCLA; Arizona vs ASU; WSU male; a game at WSU; Utah vs Colorado; Washington player; Washington vs Utah; WSU; Cal coach; Cal; UCLA coach; Colorado vs Utah; UCLA.
At least for this one, you could argue that they are trying to sell to the teams that aren't going to be sending a top team. No Oregon, OSU, Stanford. But it seems backwards to me. You think many fans of Cal will go to the PAC-12 tourney because of seeing this spot?
So, then I stumbled onto the San Jose Mercury News sports page on the web that reported Friday night's results. The headline reads:
C'mon now.... How 'bout some respect?!
(If you were wondering: BCDFGHLMNP+RS)
One of their "Message provided by the PAC-12 conference" messages promotting women's sports that I've seen on the PAC-12 channel many times caught my eye tonight. I always felt like it was strange for them to talk about the women winning championships, and yet I hadn't noticed any of the Stanford success being shown.
So, I took note of what they showed:
USC WSOC(?) huddle; Colorado Women lacrosse; UCLA male coach; UCLA women's team NC WBVB; UCLA women's SB; WVB Colorado@ASU; WSU male; WSOC @Wash (I can't tell the opponent); USC @ Oregon WBB; WBB @ PAC-12 tourney Colorado vs Utah; Colorado male coach; Colorado WLAX; Women's gymnastics UCLA@Utah; USC male; USC WLAX PAC-12 tourney; WBB Oregon State @WSU
Did you notice that 3 schools don't even show up? That might be understandable, but they missed 7 women's national championships in the last 2 years (the video was made in 2019), which seems counter to their message.
As it happened, I was watching a Sling recording of the Cal-WSU WBB game and rewound about a minute or so at 1:16, when Sling decided to send me back to about 0:26 and force me to watch their commercials. Immediately after that commercial was a PAC-12-furnished message touting the PAC-12 women's basketball tournament. Did it show any of last year's title game? No. It showed WBB for these schools:
Washington; WSU (just for an instant); UCLA; Arizona vs ASU; WSU male; a game at WSU; Utah vs Colorado; Washington player; Washington vs Utah; WSU; Cal coach; Cal; UCLA coach; Colorado vs Utah; UCLA.
At least for this one, you could argue that they are trying to sell to the teams that aren't going to be sending a top team. No Oregon, OSU, Stanford. But it seems backwards to me. You think many fans of Cal will go to the PAC-12 tourney because of seeing this spot?
So, then I stumbled onto the San Jose Mercury News sports page on the web that reported Friday night's results. The headline reads:
Quote:Women’s college basketball: Stanford cruises past Washington
Lexie Lull scored 17 points to lead the sixth-ranked Stanford Cardinal past Washington in the Pac-12 Conference game
C'mon now.... How 'bout some respect?!
(If you were wondering: BCDFGHLMNP+RS)
02-01-2020, 09:04 AM
This was a game where we were really missing a third scorer. Carrington would have been that player if she hadn’t been injured most of the season and Jones was that player until she too got injured. Our trio of forwards (Fingall, Prechtel, Belibi) all can score and have had breakout games but none have yet become a consistent game in / game out double digit scoring threat. I’m really hoping Jones comes back soon. However in her absence it seems to me that the third scorer will be Jump. One thing I like about Jump is that she is not afraid to shoot even when she is having a bad shooting streak or night. She missed some wide open 3’s last night which is uncharacteristic of her. Plus she certainly can fake the three and then drive for a mid-range jumper or floater. Unfortunately she has missed most of those attempts in her young Stanford career but the ability is there. I don’t think Bonnie Samuelson ever mastered the “fake a three for a shorter shot” maneuver and I think senior year Karlie was the only time we saw it consistently from a knock down three point shooter.
This was a game where we were really missing a third scorer. Carrington would have been that player if she hadn’t been injured most of the season and Jones was that player until she too got injured. Our trio of forwards (Fingall, Prechtel, Belibi) all can score and have had breakout games but none have yet become a consistent game in / game out double digit scoring threat. I’m really hoping Jones comes back soon. However in her absence it seems to me that the third scorer will be Jump. One thing I like about Jump is that she is not afraid to shoot even when she is having a bad shooting streak or night. She missed some wide open 3’s last night which is uncharacteristic of her. Plus she certainly can fake the three and then drive for a mid-range jumper or floater. Unfortunately she has missed most of those attempts in her young Stanford career but the ability is there. I don’t think Bonnie Samuelson ever mastered the “fake a three for a shorter shot” maneuver and I think senior year Karlie was the only time we saw it consistently from a knock down three point shooter.
Comments on what several things said above, generally in agreement with them:
Defense on Amber Melgoza. Melgoza has not seemed in either game to be the same Amber Melgoza we played in previous years. Like Kelsey Plum, in the past our very best defense on her was never more than partially successful. So I do think something is off with her. Nevertheless, that can't be the whole story when she is held to 0 points for an entire game. There had to be some good defense involved.
With regard to a third scorer. Yes, we absolutely needed a viable third scoring option. Prechtel has been that option over the last few games but Washington did a very good job on her. I think we will find out how good our freshmen really are now that teams have played them once before and developed scouting reports. I think most inferior teams are going to clog the paint and dare us to shoot threes, because even though we have some terrific three point shooters it is more random and we might have an off shooting night--and that is the opponent's best chance to win.
With regard to Pac 12 coverage of Stanford. I think the issue is similar to recent journalism and politics--there is an imperative to try to show equal coverage or respect to all sides--or all teams--even when they do not deserve it. If the Pac 12 network covered all the best successes of the conference then Stanford would dominate its coverage because we have so many more successes than the bottom half of the league. The network is probably desperate to find positive stories and coverage for the bottom tier so it does not seem like they are always talking about us. However, by doing so, they are actually distorting reality, because the bottom tier is the bottom tier for a reason.
An interesting observation by Lexie:
And Tara:
And she commented on how many more turnovers we had than against Utah:
Defense on Amber Melgoza. Melgoza has not seemed in either game to be the same Amber Melgoza we played in previous years. Like Kelsey Plum, in the past our very best defense on her was never more than partially successful. So I do think something is off with her. Nevertheless, that can't be the whole story when she is held to 0 points for an entire game. There had to be some good defense involved.
With regard to a third scorer. Yes, we absolutely needed a viable third scoring option. Prechtel has been that option over the last few games but Washington did a very good job on her. I think we will find out how good our freshmen really are now that teams have played them once before and developed scouting reports. I think most inferior teams are going to clog the paint and dare us to shoot threes, because even though we have some terrific three point shooters it is more random and we might have an off shooting night--and that is the opponent's best chance to win.
With regard to Pac 12 coverage of Stanford. I think the issue is similar to recent journalism and politics--there is an imperative to try to show equal coverage or respect to all sides--or all teams--even when they do not deserve it. If the Pac 12 network covered all the best successes of the conference then Stanford would dominate its coverage because we have so many more successes than the bottom half of the league. The network is probably desperate to find positive stories and coverage for the bottom tier so it does not seem like they are always talking about us. However, by doing so, they are actually distorting reality, because the bottom tier is the bottom tier for a reason.
An interesting observation by Lexie:
Quote:"I really trust our offense and as long as we run through every option eventually something is going to get working," Hull said.
And Tara:
Quote:"Somebody like Amber is a terrific player. For her not to score ... I'm like 'wow,'" VanDerveer said.
And she commented on how many more turnovers we had than against Utah:
Quote:The young Cardinal regressed against Washington, committing 14 turnovers. She said Washington's defense played a role.
"It's different being out there playing against it and we did make some mistakes," VanDerveer said.
Comments on what several things said above, generally in agreement with them:
Defense on Amber Melgoza. Melgoza has not seemed in either game to be the same Amber Melgoza we played in previous years. Like Kelsey Plum, in the past our very best defense on her was never more than partially successful. So I do think something is off with her. Nevertheless, that can't be the whole story when she is held to 0 points for an entire game. There had to be some good defense involved.
With regard to a third scorer. Yes, we absolutely needed a viable third scoring option. Prechtel has been that option over the last few games but Washington did a very good job on her. I think we will find out how good our freshmen really are now that teams have played them once before and developed scouting reports. I think most inferior teams are going to clog the paint and dare us to shoot threes, because even though we have some terrific three point shooters it is more random and we might have an off shooting night--and that is the opponent's best chance to win.
With regard to Pac 12 coverage of Stanford. I think the issue is similar to recent journalism and politics--there is an imperative to try to show equal coverage or respect to all sides--or all teams--even when they do not deserve it. If the Pac 12 network covered all the best successes of the conference then Stanford would dominate its coverage because we have so many more successes than the bottom half of the league. The network is probably desperate to find positive stories and coverage for the bottom tier so it does not seem like they are always talking about us. However, by doing so, they are actually distorting reality, because the bottom tier is the bottom tier for a reason.
An interesting observation by Lexie:
And Tara:
And she commented on how many more turnovers we had than against Utah:
Defense on Amber Melgoza. Melgoza has not seemed in either game to be the same Amber Melgoza we played in previous years. Like Kelsey Plum, in the past our very best defense on her was never more than partially successful. So I do think something is off with her. Nevertheless, that can't be the whole story when she is held to 0 points for an entire game. There had to be some good defense involved.
With regard to a third scorer. Yes, we absolutely needed a viable third scoring option. Prechtel has been that option over the last few games but Washington did a very good job on her. I think we will find out how good our freshmen really are now that teams have played them once before and developed scouting reports. I think most inferior teams are going to clog the paint and dare us to shoot threes, because even though we have some terrific three point shooters it is more random and we might have an off shooting night--and that is the opponent's best chance to win.
With regard to Pac 12 coverage of Stanford. I think the issue is similar to recent journalism and politics--there is an imperative to try to show equal coverage or respect to all sides--or all teams--even when they do not deserve it. If the Pac 12 network covered all the best successes of the conference then Stanford would dominate its coverage because we have so many more successes than the bottom half of the league. The network is probably desperate to find positive stories and coverage for the bottom tier so it does not seem like they are always talking about us. However, by doing so, they are actually distorting reality, because the bottom tier is the bottom tier for a reason.
An interesting observation by Lexie:
Quote:"I really trust our offense and as long as we run through every option eventually something is going to get working," Hull said.
And Tara:
Quote:"Somebody like Amber is a terrific player. For her not to score ... I'm like 'wow,'" VanDerveer said.
And she commented on how many more turnovers we had than against Utah:
Quote:The young Cardinal regressed against Washington, committing 14 turnovers. She said Washington's defense played a role.
"It's different being out there playing against it and we did make some mistakes," VanDerveer said.
02-02-2020, 01:47 AM
I was also at the game on Friday evening.
My overall impression leaving after the victory was that we are a very good team, but not a great team in our current iteration, chiefly because of our turnovers and offensive deficiencies.
That 9-0 run by UW in the second quarter caused by our numerous turnovers was created by our careless mistakes rather than anything Washington did. We must cut down on the preventable mistakes, like attempting low percentage passes into traffic or dribbling through multiple defenders or trying to hand off the ball to a teammate with a defender right there to intercept the ball. It doesn't matter in games like Friday's where we were the superior team but against teams like Oregon, they are going to make you pay, which they did when we got demolished.
We can't make preventable mistakes like that, the reward for the high-risk pass with a defender clogging up the passing lane is not worth it or trying to break up a double team by yourself when you lack the strength or size advantage.
Additionally, because our shooting can be so streaky, we need as many opportunities to shoot the ball as we can and by turning the ball over, we deprive ourselves the chance of scoring.
I am not sure I like this Princeton offense very much. By now, every team has game-planned and watched videos of the plays and positioning of our players and then to add further impediment, some teams, like UW apply the full-court press to minimize the amount of time we have to run through sets and then as the shot clock winds down, we need a Plan B.
Unfortunately, Plan B usually involves a player creating something on their own. Two of our players who can do that the best (Haley and DiJonai) are currently sidelined, so Kiana is our best hope at creating some offense on her own. Lexie is a great shooter, but she can't just drive to the basket by herself without a play setting her up to do so.
Other observations from the game:
Here's hoping every week they get better and better and they'll come back for the stretch run against our tough second half of the schedule coming up.
My overall impression leaving after the victory was that we are a very good team, but not a great team in our current iteration, chiefly because of our turnovers and offensive deficiencies.
That 9-0 run by UW in the second quarter caused by our numerous turnovers was created by our careless mistakes rather than anything Washington did. We must cut down on the preventable mistakes, like attempting low percentage passes into traffic or dribbling through multiple defenders or trying to hand off the ball to a teammate with a defender right there to intercept the ball. It doesn't matter in games like Friday's where we were the superior team but against teams like Oregon, they are going to make you pay, which they did when we got demolished.
We can't make preventable mistakes like that, the reward for the high-risk pass with a defender clogging up the passing lane is not worth it or trying to break up a double team by yourself when you lack the strength or size advantage.
Additionally, because our shooting can be so streaky, we need as many opportunities to shoot the ball as we can and by turning the ball over, we deprive ourselves the chance of scoring.
I am not sure I like this Princeton offense very much. By now, every team has game-planned and watched videos of the plays and positioning of our players and then to add further impediment, some teams, like UW apply the full-court press to minimize the amount of time we have to run through sets and then as the shot clock winds down, we need a Plan B.
Unfortunately, Plan B usually involves a player creating something on their own. Two of our players who can do that the best (Haley and DiJonai) are currently sidelined, so Kiana is our best hope at creating some offense on her own. Lexie is a great shooter, but she can't just drive to the basket by herself without a play setting her up to do so.
Other observations from the game:
- I didn't see Maya, Haley or DiJonai at the game at all, from what I can tell. I don't know whether that is a good or bad sign or nothing at all. The optimist in me is trying to reason that the staff knew they weren't ready this weekend and wanted at least one of them to prepare back on campus for the home series against the SoCal schools next weekend, but that is just speculation and wishful thinking on my part
- However, the other 12 players there were all dressed and looked ready to go, so at least 80% of the squad can play, so purely by a numbers point, that is an improvement. However, the three missing players are all important parts of the puzzle for us
- My heart skipped a beat when Lacie fell down, struggled to get up, limped off the floor and went immediately to the locker room before halftime. We do not need any more injuries to important players. However, she was out early before the second half, testing out her movement and after a little trepidation at first, it seemed (at least from my vantage point) that she was moving without any issues
- Lexie's shooting stroke is beautiful, she rarely missed any of her 3-pointers in the warmups and it looked so smooth. One of the UW fans around me commented after she hit corner 3's from both corners that she could hit them from anywhere
- I was really hoping Fran would have made that dunk. I saw that breakaway and I was like, "could this be it?" A UW fan was complaining on how it was showboating and that Tara probably yanked her because of it, but I was thinking there was little harm by her attempting it
- Even though she was not very successful, I am heartened to see Hannah Jump attempt to expand her game beyond hitting treys. I really appreciate her willingness to introduce new facets into her game and make her offensive game more well-rounded. Considering the frustration with some of our other players for not trying different things (even when the opposing defense gives them the opening), it's really nice to see Jump, midway through her freshman year, willing to experiment with new moves and options. If she can work on that over the summer and add in a near-automatic midrange jumper and drives to the basket given the right matchup, it will make her 3-point shooting that more dangerous as opponents can't just sell out on the trey
- The UW fans were noticing that not only Melgoza's shots weren't falling, their entire offense was discombobulated and not taking good notice of the shot clock winding down. I would like to think our defense played a significant role in that, but UW had a few good looks and some of their shots barely missed too
Here's hoping every week they get better and better and they'll come back for the stretch run against our tough second half of the schedule coming up.
I was also at the game on Friday evening.
My overall impression leaving after the victory was that we are a very good team, but not a great team in our current iteration, chiefly because of our turnovers and offensive deficiencies.
That 9-0 run by UW in the second quarter caused by our numerous turnovers was created by our careless mistakes rather than anything Washington did. We must cut down on the preventable mistakes, like attempting low percentage passes into traffic or dribbling through multiple defenders or trying to hand off the ball to a teammate with a defender right there to intercept the ball. It doesn't matter in games like Friday's where we were the superior team but against teams like Oregon, they are going to make you pay, which they did when we got demolished.
We can't make preventable mistakes like that, the reward for the high-risk pass with a defender clogging up the passing lane is not worth it or trying to break up a double team by yourself when you lack the strength or size advantage.
Additionally, because our shooting can be so streaky, we need as many opportunities to shoot the ball as we can and by turning the ball over, we deprive ourselves the chance of scoring.
I am not sure I like this Princeton offense very much. By now, every team has game-planned and watched videos of the plays and positioning of our players and then to add further impediment, some teams, like UW apply the full-court press to minimize the amount of time we have to run through sets and then as the shot clock winds down, we need a Plan B.
Unfortunately, Plan B usually involves a player creating something on their own. Two of our players who can do that the best (Haley and DiJonai) are currently sidelined, so Kiana is our best hope at creating some offense on her own. Lexie is a great shooter, but she can't just drive to the basket by herself without a play setting her up to do so.
Other observations from the game:
Here's hoping every week they get better and better and they'll come back for the stretch run against our tough second half of the schedule coming up.
My overall impression leaving after the victory was that we are a very good team, but not a great team in our current iteration, chiefly because of our turnovers and offensive deficiencies.
That 9-0 run by UW in the second quarter caused by our numerous turnovers was created by our careless mistakes rather than anything Washington did. We must cut down on the preventable mistakes, like attempting low percentage passes into traffic or dribbling through multiple defenders or trying to hand off the ball to a teammate with a defender right there to intercept the ball. It doesn't matter in games like Friday's where we were the superior team but against teams like Oregon, they are going to make you pay, which they did when we got demolished.
We can't make preventable mistakes like that, the reward for the high-risk pass with a defender clogging up the passing lane is not worth it or trying to break up a double team by yourself when you lack the strength or size advantage.
Additionally, because our shooting can be so streaky, we need as many opportunities to shoot the ball as we can and by turning the ball over, we deprive ourselves the chance of scoring.
I am not sure I like this Princeton offense very much. By now, every team has game-planned and watched videos of the plays and positioning of our players and then to add further impediment, some teams, like UW apply the full-court press to minimize the amount of time we have to run through sets and then as the shot clock winds down, we need a Plan B.
Unfortunately, Plan B usually involves a player creating something on their own. Two of our players who can do that the best (Haley and DiJonai) are currently sidelined, so Kiana is our best hope at creating some offense on her own. Lexie is a great shooter, but she can't just drive to the basket by herself without a play setting her up to do so.
Other observations from the game:
- I didn't see Maya, Haley or DiJonai at the game at all, from what I can tell. I don't know whether that is a good or bad sign or nothing at all. The optimist in me is trying to reason that the staff knew they weren't ready this weekend and wanted at least one of them to prepare back on campus for the home series against the SoCal schools next weekend, but that is just speculation and wishful thinking on my part
- However, the other 12 players there were all dressed and looked ready to go, so at least 80% of the squad can play, so purely by a numbers point, that is an improvement. However, the three missing players are all important parts of the puzzle for us
- My heart skipped a beat when Lacie fell down, struggled to get up, limped off the floor and went immediately to the locker room before halftime. We do not need any more injuries to important players. However, she was out early before the second half, testing out her movement and after a little trepidation at first, it seemed (at least from my vantage point) that she was moving without any issues
- Lexie's shooting stroke is beautiful, she rarely missed any of her 3-pointers in the warmups and it looked so smooth. One of the UW fans around me commented after she hit corner 3's from both corners that she could hit them from anywhere
- I was really hoping Fran would have made that dunk. I saw that breakaway and I was like, "could this be it?" A UW fan was complaining on how it was showboating and that Tara probably yanked her because of it, but I was thinking there was little harm by her attempting it
- Even though she was not very successful, I am heartened to see Hannah Jump attempt to expand her game beyond hitting treys. I really appreciate her willingness to introduce new facets into her game and make her offensive game more well-rounded. Considering the frustration with some of our other players for not trying different things (even when the opposing defense gives them the opening), it's really nice to see Jump, midway through her freshman year, willing to experiment with new moves and options. If she can work on that over the summer and add in a near-automatic midrange jumper and drives to the basket given the right matchup, it will make her 3-point shooting that more dangerous as opponents can't just sell out on the trey
- The UW fans were noticing that not only Melgoza's shots weren't falling, their entire offense was discombobulated and not taking good notice of the shot clock winding down. I would like to think our defense played a significant role in that, but UW had a few good looks and some of their shots barely missed too
Here's hoping every week they get better and better and they'll come back for the stretch run against our tough second half of the schedule coming up.
(02-02-2020, 01:47 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: I was also at the game on Friday evening.Thanks, Farm, that is quite insightful. I agree with you on preventable mistakes, on the discombobulation of the Washington offense, on the need to get another shot-producer like Carrington back, and on the general assessment that right now (with all the injuries) we are a good but not great team.
....
As for the Princeton, it is hard for me to judge but as a specialized kind of motion offense I think it is hurt particularly badly when we lose the motion oriented players rather than when we lose pure shooters. The loss of Carrington and Jones are particularly serious for this style of offense.
The reason Jump is expanding her game, though, is the Princeton, since that system requires that she move, and that every player on the court be interchangeably able to receive and make those cuts. Otherwise she would no doubt be just like Karlie in her freshmen and sophomore years--spending untold minutes standing in the corner, receiving a pass that pulls someone out and then passing it back along the perimeter.
Basically, Tara is holding our season together with defense, and we are about one injury away from a possible collapse. I could see us losing the last 4 regular season games in a row if someone else goes down and no one comes back. Let's hope Lacie's injury, which she seems to have shaken off, has no lasting effects. Remember she missed time earlier this year with an ankle injury. I hope she did not reinjure it.
Interesting point you make about Lexie needing a play to drive. I wonder if she can develop that in her game--McPhee like. She is a better shooter than McPhee was but not as much of a driver, but she finishes equally well. It does not seem to me to be too far a reach for her to start driving more, and maybe increasing the trip to the line.
(02-02-2020, 01:47 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: I was also at the game on Friday evening.Thanks, Farm, that is quite insightful. I agree with you on preventable mistakes, on the discombobulation of the Washington offense, on the need to get another shot-producer like Carrington back, and on the general assessment that right now (with all the injuries) we are a good but not great team.
....
As for the Princeton, it is hard for me to judge but as a specialized kind of motion offense I think it is hurt particularly badly when we lose the motion oriented players rather than when we lose pure shooters. The loss of Carrington and Jones are particularly serious for this style of offense.
The reason Jump is expanding her game, though, is the Princeton, since that system requires that she move, and that every player on the court be interchangeably able to receive and make those cuts. Otherwise she would no doubt be just like Karlie in her freshmen and sophomore years--spending untold minutes standing in the corner, receiving a pass that pulls someone out and then passing it back along the perimeter.
Basically, Tara is holding our season together with defense, and we are about one injury away from a possible collapse. I could see us losing the last 4 regular season games in a row if someone else goes down and no one comes back. Let's hope Lacie's injury, which she seems to have shaken off, has no lasting effects. Remember she missed time earlier this year with an ankle injury. I hope she did not reinjure it.
Interesting point you make about Lexie needing a play to drive. I wonder if she can develop that in her game--McPhee like. She is a better shooter than McPhee was but not as much of a driver, but she finishes equally well. It does not seem to me to be too far a reach for her to start driving more, and maybe increasing the trip to the line.
02-02-2020, 08:27 AM
Some thoughts on Jones
Appears she may have had a non serious minor operation
Yesterday at the men’s game wearing a brace
Ok any operation is serious but it’s not acl
This is from gathering info yesterday. I believe enough so I’ll post
Maybe a bit more at the Friday chalk talk
Appears she may have had a non serious minor operation
Yesterday at the men’s game wearing a brace
Ok any operation is serious but it’s not acl
This is from gathering info yesterday. I believe enough so I’ll post
Maybe a bit more at the Friday chalk talk
Some thoughts on Jones
Appears she may have had a non serious minor operation
Yesterday at the men’s game wearing a brace
Ok any operation is serious but it’s not acl
This is from gathering info yesterday. I believe enough so I’ll post
Maybe a bit more at the Friday chalk talk
Appears she may have had a non serious minor operation
Yesterday at the men’s game wearing a brace
Ok any operation is serious but it’s not acl
This is from gathering info yesterday. I believe enough so I’ll post
Maybe a bit more at the Friday chalk talk
(02-02-2020, 08:27 AM)BobK Wrote: Some thoughts on JonesOnce again Bob is the font of information :)
Appears she may have had a non serious minor operation
Yesterday at the men’s game wearing a brace
Ok any operation is serious but it’s not acl
This is from gathering info yesterday. I believe enough so I’ll post
Maybe a bit more at the Friday chalk talk
I'm going to resist the urge to speculate about Jones, hard as that is. My scoping for a meniscus tear took about 6 weeks to heal, but there were subtle issues for months. I'll just hope that we have her back at full strength for practice next fall, and will be pleasantly surprised if we see her earlier than that.
(02-02-2020, 08:27 AM)BobK Wrote: Some thoughts on JonesOnce again Bob is the font of information :)
Appears she may have had a non serious minor operation
Yesterday at the men’s game wearing a brace
Ok any operation is serious but it’s not acl
This is from gathering info yesterday. I believe enough so I’ll post
Maybe a bit more at the Friday chalk talk
I'm going to resist the urge to speculate about Jones, hard as that is. My scoping for a meniscus tear took about 6 weeks to heal, but there were subtle issues for months. I'll just hope that we have her back at full strength for practice next fall, and will be pleasantly surprised if we see her earlier than that.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »