(02-25-2020, 09:39 AM)teejers1 Wrote: (02-25-2020, 01:04 AM)treetop11 Wrote: Of course, this loss isn't the end of the world or the season for the team, and Oregon is a better team even if we had Carrington and Jones. Their top three are better than anybody we have and after that, their other players are on par with ours, other Kiana. But it goes back to being competitive. We weren't; many times our girls simply didn't hustle or go hard after loose balls. If Ionescu hadn't been ill and had a long day, she cold have gone for 40. As #4 playing #3 at home on the big stage, even if the opponent was better, the game should have see-sawed back and forth even if we eventually lost or lost by 8. I can eliminate the word piss, but the performance was still poor. And I'll bet that our players think the same, not that it was some kind of "victory" to end up only losing by 8. Hopefully, the loss will inspire them to do better and play harder moving ahead and get a shot to avenge the defeats in the P12 tournament.
I disagree with both highlighted phrases. Sabally is a force and Ionescu is very skilled. Hebard? Not on same level, and I'd take Ki (even with her flaws) and maybe Lexie (with her all around game); and this doesn't include our injured players.
There is a difference between fighting hard/competitiveness and making ill-advised decisions. The problem last night was more the latter than the former. [The D was generally very good]. I will give you a couple breakdowns due to lack of effort (not boxing out Sabally after her missed three and letting Ionescu get one easy put back after a miss are examples), but there are always one or two of those per game.
This team is not that far off. Push the pace; move the ball better on O; and take good shots (we had several bad shots last night, some of which were the result of not moving the ball, leading to late shot clock heaves). Those would be the
I dismissed much of the hype about Hebard in the past, but watching her this year I became a believer. Her FG% is incredible where she makes almost every type of shot near the basket regardless of the defense. Also, she's almost automatic at the FT line. She rebounds extremely well and her defense is very solid. With bigger posts common, Hebard plays at a high level without a size advantage.
I was shocked that we held her down and forced her to miss a number of shots. We made her a non-factor really. Her value was affirmed by Tara's press comments and the effort we made to stop her. I was disappointed that in stopping her we didn't win, but Sabally killed us instead.
I love Ki as a top player and there is a reason she plays almost every minute - she's essential. But she's a step behind Oregon's three. She doesn't have their size for one, and second, she is less consistent. She will get in a groove and play all-world, but she also has times where she is pretty bad; bad TOs, poor shots, weak D. Oregon's players don't have as many or obvious plays. I think she deserves 1st team all conference, but that does't mean she is at the same level as Oregon's players.
There were a number of times that I saw inadequate effort that cost us rebounds, loose balls, coverage on D, or enough aggression on O. Best way for me to explain is to compare to our MBB. They don't have the equivalent level of talent or depth, but I am awestruck watching how they fly around the court, especially on D. They close out on 3 point shooter as good as anybody (part of reason they lead P12 in 3 pt defense), yet that doesn't prevent them from defending off the dribble. They are either able to close out and still stay with a defender who tries to drive or almost every time, someone else steps in and cuts off the driver. They double, but still get back to their guy after the double. Don McLean has been really complimentary about that. Loose balls? Our guys are after them dogs on a bone, including the floor burns. Agst, Utah last night, I was fascinated at how many times our guys got on the floor to go after the ball AND avoid tie ups to eventually get the ball passed safely to a teammate. They come up with the ball and sometimes even initiate a fast break. They jump passing lanes and on O attack the basket and challenge usually bigger guys like the Utah block machine. The effort and intensity is incredible.
So if we put on a scale of 10, the men are a 10 if you allow for the fact that it's virtually impossible to go at the highest level of intensity for 40 mins., especially in the regular season and with lack of depth. Maybe in an NCAA tournament game a team will do that. If you don't allow it, they are still a 9 and the main reason that there season has been pretty successful despite not having elite talent or depth or size. For WBB, I would give them a 7 or 7.5, an 8 at times this season. But to beat a top team like Oregon, we have to be at least a 9 and possibly a 10. So I agree with you that we aren't that far off, but without the effort (and making FTs and NOT making stupid passes), we can't make that next level to get to the top. I have thought since preseason that we would finish below Oregon in the regular season, but rise up in the P12 tournament and beat them for the title. I didn't think we could beat them 3 out of 3 or 2 out of 3, but I do think we can beat them 1 out of 3. So I do believe that Tara can get the troops ready in the P12 tourney. Of course that means (and Tara knows) that we can't afford to stumble before reaching the finals.
i'm on record of thinking this team is a Sweet 16 team with a chance to be Elite 8 depending on match ups, breaks in the game, officiating, and other variables. It would take almost a miracle to make the final four and a miracle to win ii all, but I'll be happy with 16 and really pleased with 8. Any higher, I would simply be thrilled for the players and coaches deserving all the best.
(02-25-2020, 11:30 AM)M T Wrote: Can you imagine what some of our posters would have said if they were fans of Oregon about their team's 2 losses???
--------
Statistics notes:
Over the last 3 quarters, the score was Stanford 58 - Oregon 56. Oregon got their last 4 points from intentional fouls, but they also were working the clock.
8 point difference in the game, in the 3rd quarter, in the number of FT made.
Stanford impacted Oregon's rebounding, esp. offensive.
Stanford impacted Oregon's Assist to FG ratio (and total assists)
Oregon impacted Stanford's 2pt game, but that was somewhat offset by a good 3pt game.
Stanford had fewer FT & FTA (less FT%) than normal, while Oregon had marginally more.
Stanford was closer to their average scoring than Oregon was.
| Stan | Stan Season | Ore | Ore Season |
|---|
| 2pt | 14/35
40% | 19.9/40
49.8% | 20/36
55.6% | 23.1/39.9
58% |
| 3pt | 11/29
37.9% | 8.6/23.4
35.9% | 7/20
35% | 9.3/24.1
38.4% |
| FT | 5/10
50% | 9.5/13.6
69.6% | 13/17
76% | 11.7/15.2
77% |
| OR | 12/38
31.6% | 12.9/36.3
32.4% | 8/32
25% | 12.7/32.5
39% |
| DR | 24/32
75% | 28.9/40.8
70.9% | 26/38
68.4% | 27.7/38
72.8% |
| PF | 19
(2 int) | 14.6 | 14 | 12.9 |
| A | 13/25
52% | 15/28.5
52.6% | 13/27
48.1% | 20.8/32.4
64.2% |
| TO | 12 | 13 | 13 | 11.3 |
| BLK | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2.8 |
| STL | 6 | 7.9 | 8 | 8.5 |
| PTS | 66 | 75.1 | 74 | 85.8 |
I think you made my case that I have been saying in that both our teams, mens and womens, have been getting beat or almost beat at the FT line (number of FTs and %) and stupid passes.
